Finally, climate conversations have made their way to the forefront of the political arena.
While there will always be those who are skeptical about the problem, the majority of Americans, including Republicans, believe in climate change. The debate has moved on from whether or not climate change is occurring, to what to do about it.
We know we must act on climate policy, and we need a strategy that will lead to reductions in global emissions. Yet anyone interested in immediate, tangible action should recognize that a carbon tax is not the most efficient or politically expedient way to move forward.
The carbon tax debate has proved polarizing and unproductive. Advocates for carbon pricing see no other alternatives, and those opposed to the tax spend more time combating it than they do countering it with their own ideas. Meanwhile, viable solutions are drowned out. And a viable solution, a carbon tax is not.
Since its introduction in the 1990s, a price on carbon has gained little traction. Many supporters claim that carbon pricing is a popular, middle-of-the-road solution, but widespread support for it just hasn’t materialized.
Even in the dark-blue state of Washington, a carbon tax recently failed to pass twice and has been repeatedly rejected by the Democratic state legislature. The state’s latest attempt was backed by the Sierra Club, Gov. Jay Inslee, and many other powerful local players — yet it still failed.
Nearly 30 years after its introduction, a political consensus supporting carbon pricing has still not materialized, and it likely never will.
In an attempt to gain conservative support, there have been recent efforts to brand carbon pricing as a “free market” solution. However, regardless of how you package it, carbon pricing is not a free-market solution, as its very essence is the addition of regulation and extra costs in the market. While the policy is market-based, it’s still a form of government intervention.
Even if we could overcome such hurdles on the political Right, there’s no guarantee the Left would even be on board. For example, the left-leaning group Zero Hour opposes a carbon tax due to the disproportionate impact it would have on low-income communities and the elderly. Disadvantaged communities ultimately pay for carbon pricing the most, as corporations pass their increased costs onto consumers in the form of increased energy costs. This regressive approach is even more harmful given that these are the communities already the most impacted by climate change.
Additionally, climate change is a global problem, and a carbon tax is only a local solution. The United States led the world in emissions reductions in 2017, but even if we reduce our emissions to zero, other nations will still disproportionately contribute to the problem. This means we’ll take on extra costs for little results.
On the other side of this discussion, we have those who vehemently oppose a carbon tax. While they are right that a carbon tax can be unproductive, their failure to showcase alternatives is disheartening. Where they could highlight American innovation, global leadership, and developing technology, they instead cling to a tactic of denying any problem exists at all. They are only willing to fight against carbon pricing — without fighting for any meaningful alternative.
And there are alternatives. Take, for example, an “All Of The Above Energy” approach, which fosters competition, lowers the cost of energy for consumers, eliminates government’s hand in the market, and reduces emissions. This, coupled with lower tax and trade barriers and greater investments in battery storage and carbon capture will lower emissions and strengthen our economy.
No single solution will solve the climate challenge we face, so we’re better off pursuing less isolating, more sustainable carbon-reducing practices. A carbon tax has become so divisive that it is distracting us from implementation of real solutions.
Danielle Butcher is the chief operating officer for the American Conservation Coalition.
