Opinion

OPINION | ART HOBSON: Glasgow results reflect need for carbon fee to protect the planet, humanity

Glasgow meeting reflects need for greater action

The recent two-week Glasgow meeting on global warming didn't move the needle significantly, but it did reflect a public alarmed by environmental catastrophes. For example, the fraction of U.S. adults who say global warming should be a top political priority increased from 28 percent in 2012 to 52 percent in 2020. Hopefully, Glasgow will prove to be a turning point.

Positive signs: The presence of numerous national leaders showed humankind is finally taking this issue seriously. Our president warned the meeting that "time is running out" and "this is the decisive decade" -- a refreshing change from the previous president's pullout from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and his claims that global warming is an "expensive hoax." United Nations General Secretary António Guterres presented stirring remarks admonishing the world's leaders that "we are digging our own graves." Former President Obama, who helped deliver the Paris Accord, plugged Biden's $555 billion climate package and hoped "humanity can get its act together before it's too late."

There was meaningful agreement to limit methane emissions -- an important but often overlooked source of powerful greenhouse emissions. America's climate ambassador, John Kerry, lamented that national subsidies supporting fossil fuels are "a definition of insanity." It's good news, then, that the conference agreed to an unprecedented call to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies -- arguably the meeting's most important achievement.

Disappointing signs were more numerous: Fossil-fuel lobbyists were ubiquitous and instrumental in preventing a target date for shutting off coal. It became disappointingly clear that nations are unwilling to take the actions required to attain a 2.7-degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) limit on the temperature increase above pre-industrial levels. The increase is already slightly above 1.8 degrees F. Based on new pledges from all nations, scientists now predict warming will reach 4.3 degrees F by 2100. The implications of such a temperature jump will be catastrophic.

Do we really want to end Earth's experiment with civilization so soon?

The biggest disappointment was the lackluster assistance that rich nations plan to provide to poor nations. Less-developed countries say the meeting was a rich-world negotiation. A leading conference goal had been a commitment of $100 billion per year for global warming reparations and adaptation in poor countries. Rich nations are responsible for nearly 80 percent of historical carbon emissions. It's unconscionable to expect poor nations, who suffer terribly from global warming, to pay for the damage we have caused. When one considers that the annual U.S. defense budget is $750 billion, $100 billion provided by 20-plus rich countries is a paltry sum. Brian O'Callaghan, leader of Oxford University's Economic Recovery Project, says "We should have been talking about increasing climate finance to align with the need, which is trillions of dollars." Yet the rich nations have been reluctant to supply even $100 billion.

So far as I can determine, the conference didn't even discuss the idea that's most likely to solve the problem: carbon fee and dividend. I first encountered CF&D in climate scientist James Hanson's wonderful 2009 book "Storms of my Grandchildren." It would levy, at the mine, oil well or gas well, a fee on the atmospheric carbon that will be emitted by burning the extracted fuel. The fee should equal the fuel's environmental damage. The fee would be phased in, starting at a low price and gradually rising. This would significantly raise fossil fuel prices. People will quickly look for cheaper energy solutions, reducing emissions.

This plan's brilliance lies in how the fees will be used. Hanson and every other sensible analyst suggest that it be returned to all citizens on an equal per-capita basis. According to Citizens' Climate Lobby, the skilled organization that champions this plan, a reasonable fee would provide an initial dividend of $50 per month per family, soon rising to $300. Citizens' Climate Lobby thus estimates two-thirds of Americans, including most poor people, will receive more in dividends than they pay in higher prices, injecting billions into the economy and protecting family budgets.

The recently passed infrastructure bill includes money for directly capturing carbon dioxide from the air, reducing net emissions. It's goal is to capture CO2 at a cost of $100 per ton, suggesting $100 per ton of emitted CO2 as an appropriate carbon fee.

Because it's nearly certain to be effective, this plan will be fiercely resisted by industry. Stock values of those companies having no realistic plans for switching their business model into non-polluting channels will decline immediately upon enactment of carbon fee and dividend. It will be the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel age.

Upcoming Events