On July 19, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of a nonbinding resolution condemning carbon tax policy. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., introduced the measure, which claimed that a carbon tax “will increase the cost of every good manufactured in the United States” and insisted that “American families will be harmed the most.”
But not all Republicans agree. Six GOP representatives voted against the bill, and Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Fla., is set to introduce a carbon tax bill that would help cut down our country’s carbon emissions. It’s clear that the conservative caucus is divided — but they really shouldn’t be. The GOP ought to realize that, if done correctly, climate change policy can be completely consistent with conservative principles.
After all, the core value of conservatism is conservation: preserving the blessings of liberty for future generations. That’s why GOP congressmen, at least in their rhetoric, claim to oppose reckless spending and argue that it’s immoral to rack up trillions in debt and pass it on to future generations. Shouldn’t the same principle be applied to environmentalism?
The science behind climate change is conclusive, and the danger it poses to human existence is real. NASA reports that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that the earth’s climate is warming and that human activity is a major factor behind this change. More particularly, scientists believe we contribute to global warming through the release of carbon dioxide when we burn fossil fuels. If current trends continue, climate change could lead to more droughts, heat waves, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, rising sea levels, and other changes, each bringing their own set of drastic environmental and economic consequences.
If the conservative ethos really includes conservation, then Republicans have a moral and ethical responsibility to view climate change the way we view the national debt and take steps to address it — not just keep consuming carbon irresponsibly and leave later generations to live with the consequences. Some conservatives understand this, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., even ran for president on a climate change agenda in 2008.
Still, it’s easy to see why most Republicans aren’t eager to impose taxes — especially a carbon tax, which would reduce emissions but would leave consumers facing higher heating bills and paying more at the pump for gas. Imposing large taxes on businesses is never good for growth, and rising fuel costs would hit consumers hard, so there’s no doubt that climate legislation could potentially have a negative impact on the economy.
But a recent report from the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy dispels the notion that the downsides of a carbon tax would be deeply destructive. Analysts found that “carbon taxes would increase government revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars a year and drive down U.S. emissions far below current policy, with minimal effects on U.S. oil and gas production and consumption.” Any economic costs of climate legislation that do exist must be weighed against the future costs we would save from environmental damage and destruction; and when this is done, the downside of climate policy doesn’t seem nearly as dark.
There are a litany of climate proposals that would address the GOP’s economic concerns, like a “cap and dividend” system which would distribute revenue raised through climate policy equally among taxpayers, putting more money in people’s pockets and boosting consumption. Alternatively, Curbelo’s bill would use carbon tax revenue to eliminate the gas tax, mitigating the damage of his climate solution. Revenue raised through a carbon tax could also be used to cut income and business taxes, balancing out any negative impact on growth — or we could pay down the national debt conservatives claim to care so much about.
Even some of the largest fossil fuel companies in the world like Exxon Mobil and BP have signaled their support for conservative climate change legislation. Republicans are proud to be the “pro-business, pro-jobs” party when it comes to most tax policy, like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017 that slashed corporate tax rates down to 21 percent. So conservative legislators should listen to business leaders on this issue as well, and preserve the healthy environment that no economy can function without.
Still, there’s no denying that Scalise’s anti-carbon-tax resolution put GOP congressmen in a tough spot: Should they vote in support of sound policy or signal their conservative bona fides to midterm election voters? Hopefully Republicans will realize that when it comes to climate change, they can do both.
Brad Polumbo (@brad_polumbo) is a writer for Young Voices.
