Federal action on global warming is inevitable, says a resident scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, so in that context a revenue-neutral carbon tax is probably the best policy that could effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Kenneth Green, an environmental scientist who studies climate change and energy issues for the conservative AEI, explained the proposal yesterday at a luncheon sponsored by the John Locke Foundation. He suggested that a carbon tax could offset some corporate or payroll taxes, or fund tax relief for low-income households affected most by higher energy costs.
Green favored the approach, in a system in which the overall tax burden would remain neutral, over the trading of carbon “credits,” in which businesses and organizations would mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing offsets from companies that reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by activities like planting trees. He called carbon trading a practice that has already proven itself to be vulnerable to fraud, hidden from public disclosure, and a “rent-seekers’ paradise.”
“Carbon trading is really a terrible policy,” Green said. “It’s a very pernicious approach.”
Green, along with co-authors Steven F. Hayward and Kevin A. Hassett, explains in detail the carbon tax initiative in a paper for AEI titled, “Climate Change: Caps vs. Taxes.”
As for the science of global warming, Green believes the scientific data — specifically the average temperatures near the earth’s surface — clearly show a warming trend, which he ascribes at least partially to anthropogenic causes.
He cited evidences such as increases in heavy rainfall, cyclone intensity, and sea level rise. He acknowledged many uncertainties and variables in the science, but said also if recent trends continue, climate change “could harm a significant number of people.”
Still, Green said, the science needs to be distinguished from what the policy implications should be. He said that despite what the science shows, it is nearly impossible to determine what would occur with the climate as the result of any policy changes. However, Green said that should not prevent both government and private industry from acting in response to the problems climate change presents. He advocated a number of initiatives, including:
* Moving from what he called a “corrupt,” United Nations-focused system of mandates to a multi-national approach in negotiating climate change agreements.
* Shifting risk from taxpayers to individuals — for example, requiring property owners who build homes and businesses in flood plains and coastal areas to assume their own risks, rather than getting bailed out by government when catastrophe strikes.
* Shift some infrastructure from government management to market or private management — let communities or private entities determine whether to let roads flood or to foot the costs of raising street levels.
* Change national parks from a system of “circles” that protect wildlife, to a series of longer “wildlife corridor easements” in which wildlife could more freely move North or South as the climate affects it.
Paul Chesser ([email protected]) is associate editor of Carolina Journal.