Last Wednesday, the University of Maryland hosted the Climate Action 2016 forum. Leaders from academia, the government and the private sector came together to discuss research and analysis that will facilitate the implementation of the Paris Agreement.
Many of the sessions focused on strategies to pass a carbon tax. The carbon tax would tax carbon emissions created by fossil fuels. According to the Carbon Tax Center, the brunt of the tax would fall on fossil fuel energy producers. The tax is completely necessary as it would make fossil fuel production less lucrative, but the challenges of implementation might surpass the benefits.
For one, the idea of a Republican-dominant Congress (though that could change come November) passing a carbon tax is laughable. The president of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquist wrote a strongly worded letter in January opposing it. As the president of Americans for Tax Reform — an institution to which most Republicans have pledged their allegiance to — his words will not go unheeded.
Though the goal of the carbon tax would be to make the price of fossil fuels unappealing, without proper alternatives, the tax would be regressive. The Carbon Tax Center argues that “the key fact is that wealthier households use more energy on average,” but those households are much less sensitive to price fluctuations. Those that are causing the most damage will be the least affected by the tax. Additionally, it would only reduce the use of fossil fuels; it does not offer the means to completely eliminate it.
I believe that subsidizing innovation would be much more lucrative for both the planet and the consumers. In Vox’s The Weeds Podcast, Ezra Klein argues, “If you look at major past transitions in energy, they have not been done by taxes, they have been done by industrial policy by direct funding of innovation, all kinds of things that are much more command and control and if you look at the polling on different ways of approaching this problem, the carbon tax polls the worst of virtually all of them.” If businesses can supply affordable products and services that are green, the public will take notice.
Subsidizing innovation in energy practices would also encourage innovation in general. For example, Israel’s water system requires districts to regularly invest in new technologies that reduce water waste. In his book Let There Be Water, Seth Siegel explains that because municipalities had to invest in innovation, the tech entrepreneurs they invest in have the money to experiment and create other technologies, inciting the innovation that made Israel one of the largest startup nations in the world.
So, instead of penalizing bad energy practices, the government can subsidize positive ones. Silicon Valley moves much faster than Congress; innovators will be able to create viable options that eliminate rather than reduce carbon emissions on a time frame that aligns with the Paris Agreement. This would not only create appealing alternatives for consumers, but it would also facilitate growth in the technology sector.
The carbon tax will never be popular no matter how creative the implementation. It will always be met with distaste, both from Republicans in Congress and from consumers. Though it is important to make fossil fuel less appealing (perhaps we can start by eliminating government subsidies to their producers), taxation would not be enough of an incentive for households to reduce usage. Providing cost-effective and convenient energy alternatives would be a much more effective way of helping the United States reach the Paris Agreement to limit the rise in global temperatures.
Emily Shwake is a senior English major. She can be reached at eshwakedbk@gmail.com.
