Climate Corner
|
Paris and the Supreme Court
Dr. William (Coty)
Keller
Late last year in Paris, 196 nations agreed to limit global warming to 2
degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) above
pre-industrial levels. The goal was based on the broad recognition that
exceeding this threshold would result in consequences such as more sea level
rise, severe food shortages, worsening storms, and extreme heat waves likely to
outpace our civilization’s adaptive capability.
President Obama went to Paris promising that the United States would reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent by the year 2025. He was able to make that pledge because of a new EPA regulation, known as the Clean Power Plan, aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions at new and existing electric power plants. A strong commitment from the U.S. was essential to getting other nations to make pledges of their own. So, you could almost hear a collective gasp among the international community last month when the U.S. Supreme Court voted to delay the implementation of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan until legal challenges are resolved — a process that will, at best, carry over to the middle of next year.
This "setback" provides us the opportunity to ask, should we rely on executive orders, which are subject to court challenges and the whims of whoever occupies the White House, to preserve a livable world for our grandchildren? Even if all these countries meet their pledges, the world will still not have reduced emissions enough to stay under the 2 degree threshold for a livable world. As Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has said, the Paris agreement "is a very good step ... but it is not enough." The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tell us that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the order of magnitude of 40% immediately and 70-80% by mid-century. So, while the Clean Power Plan would be better than nothing, more is needed - much more. No matter the expected outcome of the Supreme Court, we need to act.
We need a more resilient and permanent solution. Congress must enact legislation placing a price on carbon, the market-based approach favored by policy makers on both the left and the right. Citizens’ Climate Lobby recommends a policy known as Carbon Fee and Dividend, whereby a steadily rising fee is placed on fuels based on the amount of CO2 they will emit when burned. All revenue from that substantial and transparent fee is then returned equally to all households as an energy dividend. A study from Regional Economic Models, Inc., found this policy would achieve a 52 percent reduction in CO2 emissions within 20 years - much better than the Clean Power Plan. It would also strengthen the American economy, adding 2.8 million jobs.
This kind of a solution has a good chance of becoming reality, in part because of bold action by Florida members of Congress. In September, Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY) introduced a resolution (H. Res 424), now cosponsored by 12 other Republicans, including three climate heroes from Florida- Carlos Curbello, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and David Jolly. The resolution states that climate change could have an adverse impact on our nation and that Congress should start working on solutions. This unprecedented resolution was followed by another breakthrough last month: The formation of the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus, co-chaired by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL). In Florida, we get it - sea level rise has us at ground zero.
The Supreme Court’s decision to delay the Clean Power Plan
highlights the folly of relying solely on executive action to solve the most
critical problem our civilization has ever faced. As more and more Republicans
express a willingness to come to the table, Congress can and must work in
earnest to enact a market-based climate solution. Carbon Fee and Dividend is
the solution that can bridge the partisan divide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was
printed in the Sun Papers Viewpoint
March 12, 2016 under the title, Court
action shows need for carbon price law.
|
Previous postings
in the Climate
Corner : ·
Regional
Economics Modeling, Inc. (REMI) |