The letter below was submitted to the Bernardsville News on 04-23-18 and published in the print edition on 04-26-18.
EDITOR:
The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. No one worried then about global warming. We should now. Warming and the associated threats of climate change, sea level rise, and ocean acidification are enormous. But discussions on what to do, that should rest on science and economics, have become politicized. Some thoughts follow.
(1) First the proposal: Launch a program to ReEnergize America with a transition period of 30 to 40 years, during which we will slow and ultimately stop burning fossil fuels and the associated emission of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas; learn to use less energy; and switch to non-fossil energy like wind, solar, and nuclear.
(2) Use the free market to drive this transition with a system of Carbon Fee and Dividend (CFD), something I have proposed before.
Specifically: Impose a gradually rising “carbon fee” on each fossil fuel at its source. Start the fees low and raise them each year. Return fee revenue to the private economy by dividing it into equal shares and distributing the shares to consumers as dividends: one share to each adult and a fractional share to a child.
Rising fossil fuel prices will raise prices throughout the economy. People will make billions of purchase decisions and move gradually towards products and services that cost less, because they depend less on fossil fuels. The dividends will help them make the transition.
So will the business community. It will see opportunities and act to provide products and services to facilitate the transition. Examples for the home: more efficient appliances, better insulation, smart controls for managing room temperatures, low interest loans to purchase these things financed by dividend streams, professional guidance, and many things we haven’t yet dreamed of.
Those, who believe that the economy works best when private persons make the buy and sell decisions, should like and support this system.
(3) Many surveys have shown that more Democrats than Republicans believe global warming to be an issue that we must address. Gallop recently published data that confirm this. Below are results for a question asked last year and again this year.
“Do you worry a great deal/fair amount about global warming?”
In 2017: Republicans 36% yes, Democrats 90% yes, a gap of 54%.
In 2018: Republicans 33% yes, Democrats 91% yes, a gap of 58%.
The data show a huge gap that appears to be growing. It is probably impossible to mount a significant national response to global warming with this amount of disagreement.
(4) An over-whelming majority of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and that we are seeing the effects today. They point to evidence like record temperatures and storm events, rising sea levels, and decline of Arctic summer sea ice. Yet 69% of Republicans in the 2018 survey think the threat is exaggerated, compared to only 4% of Democrats that do.
Related is the finding that 86% of Democrats know the scientific consensus, but only 42% of Republicans do.
Here we have disagreement over demonstrable facts. Can we narrow the gap by calm presentation and discussion of facts? Maybe, and we must try.
(5) Some may fear that the system of CFD will slow the economy. We can reduce this risk to near zero.
Start the carbon fees low and raise them by set amounts each year in accordance with a predetermined schedule. Review the economic and environmental outcomes periodically–say every four or six years—and adjust the fee schedule as needed.
Think long term. Getting off fossil fuels may take 30 or 40 years.
(6) I believe that ReEnergize America will grow the economy. The transition to conservation and non-fossil energy will generate new technologies and jobs. I’m old enough to remember when the space program did this in the 60s and 70s.
America still has a healthy business environment—perhaps the world’s best–where innovators and entrepreneurs can flourish.
(7) Suppose people in future decades conclude that our scientists were wrong and that global warming was not really a threat. No problem; stopping burning fossil fuels will have been a winning “no regrets” policy.
They will have cleaner air and fewer breathing-related health problems. We will have stopped mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. This element falls into water, works its way up the food chain, and puts human fetuses at risk for development disorders.
They won’t see in the news pictures of animals killed and habitats destroyed by oil spills. Or of people killed and homes destroyed by exploding tank cars.
(8) The law requires auto insurance. Most home-owners have insurance. Many parents have life insurance–with face values many times their annual incomes–to provide for their families if they die.
Action to slow global warming is an insurance policy, where the beneficiaries are our children. To those who deny the threat and won’t take out the insurance, I put this question:
What makes you so sure that you are right?
Bill Allen 04-23-18