The following column is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
I agree with a number of points which Chris Reed makes in his Feb. 15 op-ed on global warming and geoengineering. Aside from nuclear proliferation, global warming is probably the most dire ongoing threat to human civilization. There are many proven strategies which could potentially slow global warming. Hereβs a short list: carbon capture, infrastructure upgrade, conservation and utilization of nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, solar, biomass and oceanic energy.
There are also unproven strategies. Germany is investing substantially in green hydrogen, and China is investing substantially in geoengineering.
Chinaβs goal is probably to alter the local weather environment, and it is unlikely they will weigh potential deleterious consequences for North American weather (unless they intend to weaponize weather alteration). We are, and we should continue, to research geoengineering. But we need to be cognizant of potential destabilizing consequences.
I have not seen any coverage in the Star of the environmental religious movement in Sweden which Reed finds so offensive. I propose we move on.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has emphasized, to slow global warming, we must reduce greenhouse emissions. Hence, we must wean ourselves from fossil fuels and concomitant products. This is an incredibly difficult challenge.
As Janet Yellen and economists of all stripes have advocated for decades, the most efficient approach is to attach a price to the use of carbon, to unleash market forces on the problem. As numerous people have argued in these pages, the preferred mechanism is a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend system which would create a predictable, steadily rising price on carbon, with essentially all fees returned to households as an energy dividend.
There are flavors of this proposal. The common objectives are that, one, for the majority of households, especially lower-income households, dividends should offset increased energy costs, and two, this should serve as a blueprint which can be emulated by other nations, and for nations which do not follow suit, we will happily collect and keep the fee on their exports, to level the economic playing field.
Fee/dividend is not a panacea. As Arik Miller editorialized on Feb. 11, we will need large infrastructure projects. But we need to recognize that the potential of the private sector to effect change is vastly greater than centralized planning. For example, during the Great Depression, while the Tennessee Valley Authority and other projects had important impacts, it was likely investment in the private sector which lifted the economy.
Fee/dividend is also an immense political challenge. It is fortuitous, in our divided political landscape, that this is a policy that can potentially be embraced by both parties. The Republican Party has wrapped itself in climate denialism for 30 years, and this is an off-ramp to reality.
For Democrats, the reality is that one democratic senator is from West Virginia, two are from Arizona and two are from Georgia. The current balance of power in the Senate is the most precarious in history. Democrats cannot go this alone, and this would be unwise in any event.
Demagogues will conflate fee/dividend with a tax. Industry groups want to trade their support for suspension of the EPAβs regulation of greenhouse gases. Some progressives want to use a percentage of the fee to fund large scale infrastructure projects.
For our Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, this presents a golden political opportunity to burnish her credentials as a centrist. I and others have begged Sinema numerous times to take the lead, or at least articulate a position, on fee/dividend, and she has remained silent. Sen. Sinema, please put something substantial on your webpage, or write to this paper.
