Comment pubs.acs.org/est
Responding to Climate Change with a Carbon Tax
O
by 17% via a carbon tax of $63 per ton of carbon dioxide, according to the IMF paper. Another case-in-point comes from an OECD analysis of British Columbia. B.C. implemented a gradually increasing carbon tax up to $30 per ton from 2008 to 2012 and used the revenues to pay down income taxes (Kathryn Harrison, OECD, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment-and-sustainable-development/the-political-economyof-british-columbia-s-carbon-tax_5k3z04gkkhkg-en). Since then, B.C. has enjoyed a vigorous economy and the lowest income taxes in Canada (Eduardo Porter, New York Times, September 24, 2014, page B1). Word seems to be spreading. At the U.N. meeting, some 30 companies allied themselves with Caring for Climate Business Leadership Criteria on Carbon Pricing. Ban Ki-Moon said, “one of the most powerful tools available for reducing emissions and generating sustainable development and growth” is carbon pricing. According to Mr. Ban, various policy instruments could be utilized, depending on the country and the business, but one must eliminate fossil fuel subsidies wherever possible. Based on these developments, some “do’s” and “don’ts” become evident which should drive policy decisions on carbon taxes, the Keystone XL, and many other issues. 1. Coal, oil, and gas must go (in that order). Do not invest in new mines, wells, pipelines, terminals, refineries, or infrastructure intended for use over the next 50−75 years. We will be out of the fossil fuel age before that time. 2. Fossil fuels fail to pay for externalities in health care costs, lost species, melting ice, and permafrost, extreme storms, record droughts, and damage from wildfires. Do adopt a carbon tax similar to that in British Columbia. It has performed amazingly well. 3. Renewable energy and energy efficiency create jobs and save money in the long run. Do encourage and invest in them. Why not shift fees and subsidies from fossil fuels toward wind, solar, geothermal, methane gas capture, and utilization, electric vehicles, biomass, bike trails, mass transit, and light rail? 4. Nuclear power experienced serious set-backs from Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2010. But it cannot be taken off the policy-table in responding to climate change. Do consider developing nuclear power, nuclear waste storage facilities, and fuel reprocessing for the final cuts in fossil fuel emissions that will be needed in the out-years for baseline power. In addition to Ban Ki-Moon, U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the U.N. meeting. Of the many challenges pressing nationsterrorism, inequality, and diseasehe said, “there is one issue that would define the contours of the current century more than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate”. Let us hope that if the U.N. climate treaty in Paris does not produce all that is needed, a carbon tax can help us respond.
n September 23rd, the United Nations met to determine a path forward to a climate treaty next year in Paris. 192 countries met and made some progress, but the goal of actually stabilizing emissions by 2020 and cutting emissions by 50% by 2050 still seems a distant dream. That is what is needed to halt global warming at 2 °C and to avoid “dangerous interference” with the climate system. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon seemed well pleased with the meeting. “Today was a great day−a historic day. Never before have so many leaders gathered to commit to action on climate change,” Mr. Ban explained that progress was made on a commitment to reduce emissions and for the Green Climate Fund to help nations most affected by climate change. Not everyone was so sanguine. It is been 22 years since the Rio Earth Summit and the advent of the U.N. Climate Convention, but we’ve made absolutely no progress in cutting global emissions or even agreeing on a time-table to do so. Nonetheless, there’s some reason for optimism today. Europe, Japan, and the U.S. have turned the corner on greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. emissions are at the lowest level since 1994the European Union has done even better. These countries may be successful in meeting nonbinding pledges made at the Copenhagen Climate Convention in 2009. For the E.U., that is a 20% reduction by 2020 compared to a baseline of 1990; and for the U.S., a 17% reduction by 2020 over 2005-levels. But the rate of reductions in Europe and the U.S. are neither sufficient to stem climate change nor provide a 50% global cut by 2050 with further steep curtailments required after that. Global emissions are still growing at 2% per year. The paltry progress to date will not limit warming to 2 °Cit will not moderate extremes in precipitation and drought, or stop melting ice and sea level rise. Heretofore reluctant nations must fully participate in the Paris treaty, including past laggards like the U.S., China, India, Brazil, Russia, and Australia. Simply put, I’m not sure we can rely on a U.N. treaty to accomplish the task. There’s still too much acrimony. Developing countries think the greatest burden should be on the developed countries who contributed the majority of accumulated greenhouse gases and who have the financial means to respond. Developed countries insist that avoiding “dangerous interference” cannot be accomplished without the participation of China, the largest global emitter, and others. So how can we craft solutions from the current stalemate? The secret to action may be in realizing that progress can be made with little or no cost to economies. In fact, if carbon tax revenues are reinvested in reducing income tax burdens, it can actually stimulate economic growth. Recent reports conclude that countries can advance economically while addressing climate commitments through carbon taxes (The New Climate Economy, http://newclimateeconomy.report/; Ian Parry, Chandara Veung, Dirk Heine, International Monetary Fund report, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/ wp14174.pdf). For example, China could produce a net economic gain of 1% in their GDP while cutting emissions © 2014 American Chemical Society
Published: October 7, 2014 12475
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5047952 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 12475−12476
Environmental Science & Technology
■
Comment
Jerald L. Schnoor,* Editor-in-Chief AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*[email protected]. Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
12476
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5047952 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 12475−12476
Responding to Climate Change with a Carbon Tax
O
by 17% via a carbon tax of $63 per ton of carbon dioxide, according to the IMF paper. Another case-in-point comes from an OECD analysis of British Columbia. B.C. implemented a gradually increasing carbon tax up to $30 per ton from 2008 to 2012 and used the revenues to pay down income taxes (Kathryn Harrison, OECD, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment-and-sustainable-development/the-political-economyof-british-columbia-s-carbon-tax_5k3z04gkkhkg-en). Since then, B.C. has enjoyed a vigorous economy and the lowest income taxes in Canada (Eduardo Porter, New York Times, September 24, 2014, page B1). Word seems to be spreading. At the U.N. meeting, some 30 companies allied themselves with Caring for Climate Business Leadership Criteria on Carbon Pricing. Ban Ki-Moon said, “one of the most powerful tools available for reducing emissions and generating sustainable development and growth” is carbon pricing. According to Mr. Ban, various policy instruments could be utilized, depending on the country and the business, but one must eliminate fossil fuel subsidies wherever possible. Based on these developments, some “do’s” and “don’ts” become evident which should drive policy decisions on carbon taxes, the Keystone XL, and many other issues. 1. Coal, oil, and gas must go (in that order). Do not invest in new mines, wells, pipelines, terminals, refineries, or infrastructure intended for use over the next 50−75 years. We will be out of the fossil fuel age before that time. 2. Fossil fuels fail to pay for externalities in health care costs, lost species, melting ice, and permafrost, extreme storms, record droughts, and damage from wildfires. Do adopt a carbon tax similar to that in British Columbia. It has performed amazingly well. 3. Renewable energy and energy efficiency create jobs and save money in the long run. Do encourage and invest in them. Why not shift fees and subsidies from fossil fuels toward wind, solar, geothermal, methane gas capture, and utilization, electric vehicles, biomass, bike trails, mass transit, and light rail? 4. Nuclear power experienced serious set-backs from Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2010. But it cannot be taken off the policy-table in responding to climate change. Do consider developing nuclear power, nuclear waste storage facilities, and fuel reprocessing for the final cuts in fossil fuel emissions that will be needed in the out-years for baseline power. In addition to Ban Ki-Moon, U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the U.N. meeting. Of the many challenges pressing nationsterrorism, inequality, and diseasehe said, “there is one issue that would define the contours of the current century more than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate”. Let us hope that if the U.N. climate treaty in Paris does not produce all that is needed, a carbon tax can help us respond.
n September 23rd, the United Nations met to determine a path forward to a climate treaty next year in Paris. 192 countries met and made some progress, but the goal of actually stabilizing emissions by 2020 and cutting emissions by 50% by 2050 still seems a distant dream. That is what is needed to halt global warming at 2 °C and to avoid “dangerous interference” with the climate system. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon seemed well pleased with the meeting. “Today was a great day−a historic day. Never before have so many leaders gathered to commit to action on climate change,” Mr. Ban explained that progress was made on a commitment to reduce emissions and for the Green Climate Fund to help nations most affected by climate change. Not everyone was so sanguine. It is been 22 years since the Rio Earth Summit and the advent of the U.N. Climate Convention, but we’ve made absolutely no progress in cutting global emissions or even agreeing on a time-table to do so. Nonetheless, there’s some reason for optimism today. Europe, Japan, and the U.S. have turned the corner on greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. emissions are at the lowest level since 1994the European Union has done even better. These countries may be successful in meeting nonbinding pledges made at the Copenhagen Climate Convention in 2009. For the E.U., that is a 20% reduction by 2020 compared to a baseline of 1990; and for the U.S., a 17% reduction by 2020 over 2005-levels. But the rate of reductions in Europe and the U.S. are neither sufficient to stem climate change nor provide a 50% global cut by 2050 with further steep curtailments required after that. Global emissions are still growing at 2% per year. The paltry progress to date will not limit warming to 2 °Cit will not moderate extremes in precipitation and drought, or stop melting ice and sea level rise. Heretofore reluctant nations must fully participate in the Paris treaty, including past laggards like the U.S., China, India, Brazil, Russia, and Australia. Simply put, I’m not sure we can rely on a U.N. treaty to accomplish the task. There’s still too much acrimony. Developing countries think the greatest burden should be on the developed countries who contributed the majority of accumulated greenhouse gases and who have the financial means to respond. Developed countries insist that avoiding “dangerous interference” cannot be accomplished without the participation of China, the largest global emitter, and others. So how can we craft solutions from the current stalemate? The secret to action may be in realizing that progress can be made with little or no cost to economies. In fact, if carbon tax revenues are reinvested in reducing income tax burdens, it can actually stimulate economic growth. Recent reports conclude that countries can advance economically while addressing climate commitments through carbon taxes (The New Climate Economy, http://newclimateeconomy.report/; Ian Parry, Chandara Veung, Dirk Heine, International Monetary Fund report, http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/ wp14174.pdf). For example, China could produce a net economic gain of 1% in their GDP while cutting emissions © 2014 American Chemical Society
Published: October 7, 2014 12475
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5047952 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 12475−12476
Environmental Science & Technology
■
Comment
Jerald L. Schnoor,* Editor-in-Chief AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*[email protected]. Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
12476
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es5047952 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 12475−12476
