The Simplest Solution is Often the Best Solution

I am not a scientist.  So I have no idea whether or not the myriad studies regarding the impact of people on the warming of the planet are accurate.  But I will say that the opinion of such a large part of the scientific community matters.  It seems folly to completely ignore it.  My other point is that we are not trying the scientific community in a court of law.  They don’t need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather a simple preponderance of the evidence says, “you know, we should see what we can do.”  So I am an advocate for policies that lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

What I am not an advocate for is using global warming as an excuse for unconscionable largess, which is what the Democrats offered in their legislation.  The plan would collect more than a trillion dollars in revenues that Congress would then mete out as they see fit (to bring industries on board with the plan and, more cynically, open up new campaign donation markets).

I would like to plead with all people who think global warming is a problem and want to do something about it. Please recognize how politically difficult it is to do something about a problem that may or may not exist in the minds of voters. Don’t use it as an excuse to create a colossal and completely unnecessary program that is so complicated it is unlikely to solve the problem.  Just solve the problem and don't leave it for our children.

There is a simple solution that could be implemented in a short piece of legislation.  But before I get to that, let’s recognize that technology must solve this problem. Even in developed nations, where our economies can handle large expenditures and change, the idea of switching from fossil fuels today seems impossible.  The costs are too great.  Rather, we need to encourage more private investment in the development of technology. Rather than switching all coal plants to inefficient wind power, which is currently our best alternative, we need to look to solar or carbon capture and sequestration technology, and that takes time and money.

This is even more important in developing nations.  They are unlikely to weigh down their economies to fight a problem developed nations created (and benefited from).  If we really want emerging powerhouse industrial nations to deal with this problem, our best bet is to develop the technology we can sell to them.  Win win.

So I propose a tax on greenhouse gasses that rises over time.  Now of course this is hardly a new idea.  Lots of policy advocates say a tax is a better way to get at this problem than “cap and trade”, but I’ll propose a politically palatable yet still effective tax.  The tax should start very slowly.  Maybe it’s not even in place at all for five years. Maybe it’s not at all meaningful for 15 years, or more, but when corporations do long-term planning and crunch the numbers, they’ll quickly realize that if they invest in technology to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, they stand to have a competitive advantage (or avoid a disadvantage) in future years.  It actually makes, for the first time, greenhouse gas emissions part of the equation for U.S. businesses.

Finally, the impact of this tax (as well as increased costs of goods from companies investing resources to develop technology) is mitigated in two ways.  First, the investments these companies make create jobs.  And not just any jobs, but jobs in an industry that should grow over decades and develop exportable products.  Second, in my proposal we’d return all tax proceeds directly to consumers.