The following column is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
The scientific evidence that global warming is real and dangerous is overwhelming. Locally, based on my own observations, it appears evident to me that Tucson’s temperatures (averaged over the past five years, say) are now comparable to those of Phoenix 30 years ago, and Phoenix’s temperatures are now comparable to those of Yuma 30 years ago. One casualty: the forest on the Catalinas, what remains of it, is doomed. But bear in mind (think of the massive unfolding humanitarian crisis in Bangladesh) that global warming is a global crisis for which there is no vaccine.
As a presidential candidate 32 years ago, George H.W. Bush said “Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the ‘White House effect.’ As president, I intend to do something about it.” To his credit, he tried. His guiding idea, which has been pursued over the years by James Baker and George Schultz of his administration, was to use markets to achieve environmental goals. There once was a rational wing of the Republican party, and it needs to be restored.
Joe Biden’s $2 trillion, four-year climate plan is best viewed as a post-pandemic job program. Because global warming is a global crisis, our first priority should be a simple standalone plan which can be emulated by virtually all other nations, a plan which can withstand the vagaries of U.S. politics.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and economists of all stripes have advocated for decades, the most efficient approach is to attach a price to the use of carbon. In the wake of 9/11, I wrote to Jon Kyl to advocate increasing gas taxes. He responded by noting that energy costs disproportionately impact those with lesser incomes. He is right. The question of whether he cared is irrelevant.
The way forward is the revenue neutral fee/dividend plan which has been advocated by diverse groups such as the Citizen’s Climate Lobby. As Ed Beshore, Jane Conlin and others have noted in these pages, it is a simple plan, it addresses Kyl’s social justice concerns, it has a mechanism which coerces other nations to follow suit, and it creates an incentive for conservation. Market forces tend to be messy, and grand central plans have a certain allure. But 20th century history clearly proved that markets (suitably constrained) are more effective than central plans. Moreover fee/dividend is a policy that could be embraced by a rational reincarnation of the Republican party of H.W. Bush, which would give it some political stability.
The climate crisis is advancing rapidly, and it is probably too late to arrest warming at 2 degrees Celsius over the historical mean (think of the precarious state of the Amazon rainforest, or 100 degree temperatures in the Arctic).
But as a world community, we need to put one foot forward, in sync. A fee/dividend is a start.
