When did so many conservatives lose faith in the free market?
Fiscal conservatives know that “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Yet somehow many of us fail to listen when leaders like ExxonMobil remind us that pollution, including carbon dioxide, isn’t free. It’s changing our climate, which costs farmers with exacerbated droughts and floods, coastal property with flooding, individual health with longer asthma seasons, etc.
By definition, we’re already paying a carbon fee, it’s just disguised in other costs.
Further, some conservatives seem to have lost faith that the market can deliver solutions to address this problem. It’s true that for generations, economic prosperity was tied to CO2 emissions. But as natural gas and renewables have boomed, and private actors in the economy have prioritized energy efficiency in their capital expenditures, we have seen a “decoupling” of emissions from GDP. However, this trend will only continue gradually until Congress offers the market certainty by adopting a predictable, long-term emissions policy. Until then, capital sits on the sidelines.
Enter Chandler Thornton. I thank him for chairing the College Republican National Committee, and appreciate his support for protecting public lands, which was recognized by Conservatives for Environmental Reform (an organization I briefly advised). But, he recently penned an op-ed deriding carbon pricing as “unaffordable” while failing to offer an alternative. His critique was basically, “It won’t work, it’s bad for the economy, and it’s not politically popular.” The first argument is wrong, the second depends on the policy details, and the last is both incorrect and self-fulfilling. Here’s why:
First, will a price on carbon emissions reduce them? Any red-blooded fiscal conservative who understands price signals should have no problem telling you absolutely yes: Make something more expensive, you do less of it. Googling “carbon tax emissions reduction” will bring up dozens of right- and left-leaning sources saying the same. And as CO2 decreases, so does global warming, thereby reducing the burden to us all.
Still, Thornton offers a common but misleading argument that “a carbon tax does not measurably reduce global temperatures,” citing EPA data. This talking point is rooted in a logic that says, “We’re speeding toward a brick wall, but since taking our foot off the gas will only slow us down before impact rather than avoiding collision altogether, let’s keep the pedal to the metal.” Not exactly conservative risk management.
His second main claim is, “A carbon tax can’t be implemented in a revenue neutral way that won’t harm our growing economy.” First, let’s not forget that we’re already paying for carbon emissions, as argued above. But putting that aside, he is correct that there are ways that a poorly-designed carbon price can dampen the economy, particularly if it’s truly a tax where the government keeps the revenue. And that is why no conservative group supports this approach. The center of gravity of policy support right now is around carbon dividends, i.e. returning all carbon fee revenues evenly to U.S. citizens. Doing so will not only make the policy revenue-neutral, but offsets increased cost of living such that 58 percent of Americans are expected to come out ahead or break even (estimate your own here). The vast majority of these folks live in low- and middle-income households.
Finally, he argues that, “Voters are especially unwilling to increase their own cost of living in exchange for a policy that doesn’t work.” I would agree, except that, 1) the policy does work, as argued above, and, 2) voter sentiment is already there. Per Yale and Utah State polling, 68 percent of Americans already support a carbon tax and 57 percent of Republicans support regulating CO2. Opposition to carbon policies is self-fulfilling: As leaders like Thornton dismiss this sensible market correction, other conservatives will, too.
This policy will pass one day. The question is how much money will we waste in the meantime cleaning up after every national disaster made worse by a warming climate? I’d invite Chandler Thornton to help us ensure that carbon pricing is done right, and in time to ensure the public lands he loves so much avoid the worst impacts of a warming climate.
Peter Bryn is an engineer formerly with ExxonMobil, member of the Houston Young Republicans, and volunteer with the Conservative Caucus of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
