Mitigating effects

I applaud Publisher Gordon Forgey for his editorial “Climate refugees.” In it he describes a phenomenon – the flood of refugees into our country from climate change – as likely to be “slower in coming,” yet longer-lasting than Dust Bowl dislocations during the Great Depression. That editorial was based on research published in Nature Climate Change last month. The study focused on social costs of carbon (SCC) in each of the earth’s nearly 200 countries. The SCC measures economic harm from carbon dioxide emissions. Previous research focused on how economic benefits of using fossil fuels in rich countries damaged developing nations primarily. This study suggests that the top three countries with the most to lose from climate change will be India, the United States, and Saudi Arabia. On Monday the Guardian headlined its story: “New study finds incredibly high carbon pollution costs – especially for the US and India.” It reported that the global SCC will be substantially higher than earlier estimates.

The article suggested that, as a wealthy, warm country, “the US would benefit from implementing a carbon tax to slow global warming.” This reinforces a growing bipartisan consensus from Washington to Washington, from the nation’s capital to our own state. In the other Washington, a bipartisan group called the Climate Leadership Council is working to develop support for a carbon tax-and-dividend plan. It includes former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, former Walmart Chair Rob Walton, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers and former Secretary of State George Shultz.

The plan, “Exceeding Paris,” was released last month. It describes how the carbon dividends plan would significantly exceed the US Paris commitment to reduce carbon emissions. A recent poll commissioned by the council found 56% of respondents supported the idea, with just 26% opposing. That such a distinguished group of knowledgeable individuals would propose this approach to mitigating climate change underscores the urgency of the problem.

“Exceeding Paris” is downloadable at: https://www.clcouncil.org/media/Exceeding-Paris.pdf

In our own Washington, ballot initiative I-1631 proposes a similar approach. In a few weeks each of us will have the opportunity to vote. If 1631 passes, Washington will be the first state in our union to initiate such a plan. Our northern neighbor, BC, has had a similar plan in effect since 2008. Two years ago the New York Times reported on that tax, admitting that “cutting emissions enough to make a difference … remains a difficult challenge,” Yet, “The most important takeaway for American skeptics is that the policy basically worked as advertised.”

Last year Vox reported that 40 nations – not states – were taxing carbon pollution, including China. After testing a carbon cap-and-trade system in nine provinces, China was planning to go national, “effectively doubling the world’s priced carbon.” Before you scratch your ballot next month, please consider carefully the implications and ramifications of your vote, and what it will mean when that solitary vote is joined with millions of others of the same bent. Human-emitted carbon is warming our earth, changing our climate, and having a myriad of negative effects, some known, but most unknown. Our state of ignorance is infinitely larger than our state of knowledge.

But our state of knowledge is grim enough. It’s happening, and it’s happening now. Taxing carbon is a good first step toward mitigating effects both known and unknown.

--Peter Haug, Colfax