While it may not be apparent from looking out the window or taking a walk to the mailbox, 2014 is well on its way to becoming one of the warmest years on record, according to climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In fact, one NOAA scientist says it’s “pretty likely” that this year will pass 2010 for the top spot. On a more local level, Maine is tied with Vermont for the dubious distinction of having its annual temperature increase more over the past 30 years than any of the other states in the lower 48. Finally, a report synthesizing studies by twenty two groups of scientists and published in The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society concluded that a record setting heat wave in Australia last year was “largely attributable” to human caused climate change, while heat waves in Europe and East Asia were “substantially influenced” by global warming.

Given all this, what can be done to slow, and then reverse, the steady increase of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? A major part of the problem is that our economic system does not place proper value on the natural resources upon which all life on Earth depends — clean air, clean water, healthy soils, etc. Extractive industries do not pay an adequate price for the damage they do to these natural resources. In fact, current Federal policy actually encourages this destructive behavior. An analysis by the Environmental Law Institute showed that, from 2002 to 2008, the U.S. Government provided $72 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries as opposed to $14 billion in support of renewable energy. (Another $15 billion went to support the production of ethanol which, though technically renewable, has questionable environmental benefits at best.) Most of the fossil fuels subsidies are embedded in the tax code as permanent provisions, while those for renewables tend to be short term programs requiring periodic renewal, thus sending mixed signals to potential investors. Apart from the environmental consequences of these fossil fuel subsidies, they make little economic sense since oil, gas and coal are well established, highly profitable industries and shouldn’t require the same level of support as solar, wind, geothermal and other emerging technologies.

In addition to revamping our Federal subsidies policy, a revenue neutral carbon tax is another promising tool. Under this approach, fossil fuels would be taxed as they enter the U.S. economy, either through extraction from the ground or importation from other countries. Initially, this tax would be borne by the companies doing the extracting or importing, but much of it would then be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. This would reduce demand for carbon based energy sources and make renewables more competitive. In order to ensure against imposing an unfair burden on the public, dependent as we are on the artificially cheap goods and services that fossil fuels provide, all of the revenue generated by the tax would be returned to individuals and families in the form of monthly dividends.

Both economic modeling and real world experience support the case for a revenue neutral carbon tax. The Citizens Climate Lobby, a non-profit, non partisan group, with local chapters throughout the country, contracted with Regional Economic Modeling Inc. to perform a macroeconomic study of a carbon tax proposal very similar to the one CCL is promoting. REMI, founded in 1980, is known for the high technical quality of its work, untainted by any ideological predispositions. The model REMI developed for CCL found that a carefully designed revenue neutral carbon tax would result in several positive outcomes, including increases in Gross Domestic Product and employment, as well as sharp declines in carbon emissions.

In 2008, British Columbia introduced a revenue neutral carbon tax. After five years, according to a research report from the University of Ottawa, the province’s economy has performed slightly better than that of the rest of Canada, while per capita fossil fuel use has dropped by more than 17 percent, substantially more than in any of the other provinces. The report’s authors emphasize that these results are preliminary, but they note that BC’s experience is consistent with those of seven European countries who enacted similar taxes in the 1990’s.

The likelihood that the Federal Government would take meaningful steps to prepare for climate change, never high in the first place, took a hit in the recent national elections. But elected officials can change their minds and the people can change their elected officials. Conservative economist Milton Friedman, speaking in another context, once said “only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.” The world’s climate scientists are telling us that a crisis — actual, not just perceived — is approaching. The Midcoast Maine Citizens Climate Lobby is working to keep the idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax “alive and available.” I invite you to join us.

———

Michael Wilson is a member of Midcoast Maine Citizens Climate Lobby and lives in Brunswick.