Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been producing more carbon emissions by burning coal, oil and gas to produce energy than the planet can naturally consume. Science tells us that this trend is not sustainable without dire consequences.
The longer we wait to address the problem, the more difficult the challenge becomes.
The question is, what can we do to reverse this trend without doing harm to our economy?
Click image to go to website
Fortunately, the free market offers us a powerful tool to combat this problem. The laws of supply and demand tell us that when the price of a commodity (such as gas, coal, or oil) rises, less of it will be demanded. If we charge a fee every time coal, oil, and gas is pulled from the ground, people and corporations will be incentivized to use less of that commodity and this will drive innovation for alternatives. Focusing government policy on reducing emissions instead of using mandates and regulations will allow energy providers, businesses and households the opportunity to make their own decisions on the best technologies and solutions for them.
The monies collected by this fee would be pooled together and evenly distributed to every U.S. citizen.
Unlike a tax which the government spends, the American consumer would receive money whenever someone pulls coal, oil or gas out of the ground. Over time, this market mechanism will not only reduce carbon emissions it will encourage the development of 21st Century alternative energy sources. And putting the money into people’s pockets will allow them to spend it as the wish. What can be more American than that?
The Business Roundtable, a major trade organization of CEO’s, endorses curbing emissions through a “market-based mechanism.”
Over 3,500 economists across the nation, including former Federal Reserve Chairs, call a carbon fee the “most cost-effective lever to reduce emissions.” While a coalition of 20 prominent faith organizations call carbon pricing a “powerful tool.”
It is important that we contact our federal elected officials, Senator McConnell, Senator Paul and Representative Massie, to encourage them to institute this type of economic reform in this upcoming session of Congress. Let them know you support market-based solutions to reduce carbon-based emissions!
Teresa Werner of Villa Hills is a member of the Citizens’ Climate Lobby, a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy group with 150,000 members across the U.S. and local chapters in NKY, Lexington, Louisville, Western Kentucky, and Cincinnati.
Fake science, biased stats, and simply sowing fear. The world was supposed to be environmentally inhabitable by now. All of the fake predictions and those years and times pass without issue. Go lecture the Chinese communist party before further trying to shoot America in the foot. I’m going to burn all of the coal, gas, and oil I want, come and take it.
3500 American economists, including 30 from KY, 4 former heads of Fedreal Reserve, 15 former chairs of the Presidents Council of Economic Advisors and 27 Nobel Laureates economists signed Statement in Wall Street Journal supporting a fee on Green house gas emissions.
Exxon,Shell, Conference of Catholic Bishops, Presbyterian Synod etc. support a price.
US Chamber of Commerce..”inaction on climate change is not an option.”
I could go on.
Tony and David, America has some of the strictest environmental standards in the world, alongside Europe. That’s a fraction of the worlds population, landmass, and industrial production. We are doing completely fine where we stand and with what we are doing to protect the environment. There are not imaginary lines that keep pollution within a country’s borders. All of Asia, India, Russia, Africa, South America, etc. are 100 years behind us on environmental protection standards. most of those places are filterless to put it simply Your focus should be making those countries up there rules and standards first before even looking at America.
It makes no sense for America to create further environmental regulations that really don’t do any more good for the environment. The cake is already there, and putting a little more icing on the cake far outweighs the economic costs and consequences.
It is very important you look at both sides of the argument. You would be very surprised if you follow the money in relation to environmental leaders, programs, agencies, etc. At this point it is all about money, people justifying salaries, and programs justifying budgets and keeping their pockets lined.
Again, America could become carbon neutral tomorrow and it wouldn’t do a thing for the world as a whole if dozens of other countries are still pumping an insane amount of emissions into the air.
This has nothing to do with how well America is doing or not, it’s either people motivated by money or power/control pushing the agenda, or uninformed climate activists that can’t mentally grasp the big picture and swallow all of the propaganda without question.
Citing liberal news outlets who have a pre-set agenda (that is proven fact in recent years), is not a valid argument. Further, many of the scientific predictions that people look to as the bible have been completely wrong over the years and decades. Some correct yes, but many many very wrong. They all can’t be taken as fact. And again, the climate leaders want nothing more than their “data” being constantly referenced and used so they can justify their speeches, studies, budgets, and everything else where the money flows around or to them and that gives them the power and control over others (simply human nature).
A good model is the “Cap-and-Trade” system introduced in the 1990 Clean Air Act. After it was implemented, sulfur-dioxide (acid rain) emissions went down faster than predicted, at a far lower cost than expected. (The Economist, July 6, 2002)
David, people are leaving California in droves due to it now being economically and regulatorily uninhabitable, due to a one party system that puts ineffective environmental regulation above all else. Nobody wants the rest of the country to be like that. Here are my points:
– renewable energy (wind/solar/hydro, etc.) works partially yes. But, it has to be subsidized with billions of tax dollars, probably for another 50 years until the technology gets to where it needs to be. But, it cannot support an entire grid given supply and demand issues (look it up, its physically impossible to be 100% on renewables without frequent black outs and brownouts).
– There are an insanely high amount of products and processes that require oil. No matter what, they need oil or they disappear. Most medicines, anesthetics, pavement, car tires, most plastics, all hoses, gaskets, fittings (for any mechanical device large or small), many cleaning products, and most importantly you cannot create build or have renewable energy infrastructure without using oil, a lot of oil… If everyone is okay with literally shutting down the way the world operates and essentially having little to no economy, transportation, life saving drugs, or hospitals and living off the land, I think they should be able to decide that .
– The vast majority of climate activists are complete hypocrites, their lifestyles and life choices do nothing to get away from carbon footprints and use of fossil fuels. All of the celebs fly on jets, build and live in giant houses. And everyone else, drives in cars or busses, they buy food from supermarkets, they heat their homes, they turn on their lights at night, the use iphones and computers, they wear shoes made of rubber, they take medicine and use hospitals that use fossil fuels, they shop at places that were built using and use fossil fuels, they buy stuff online that has to be flown, shipped, and driven to their homes, they cook their food, they use and watch TV that was produced with mass fossil fuel and toxic parts, they drive electric cars that destroy the environment when those batteries are manufactured, they ride bikes that have rubber tires made from oil, they use oil to lube their bike chains, they listen to music and use the internet that is transmitted through cell towers and satellites that used insane amounts of oil to launch them into space, or to erect a giant steel tower where the steel used an insane amount of fuel and oil to produce. The list can go on for literally a million points.
—- MOST IMPORTANTLY: The only reason large corporations, even oil companies, or other large entities or people in general put their names behind and say they support carbon tax or environmental regulations is because that weeds out all of the smaller companies under them. Smaller companies would not be able to take on that extra costs and taxes and either slowly go out of business or get bought out by the big guys. And there you have standing only the huge corporations who regardless of taxes they now have total market control, and could care less about taxes and reg fees if they now can charge the consumers whatever they want. People think they get warm and fuzzy feelings when they see big companies supporting environmental regulations, except they have no idea that creates a quick and easy path to monopolies and no competition. People need to think outside of the box and see what’s really going on…..