A Center-Right Response to Climate Change

“And I’m like, ‘You try! You do it’,” Ocasio-Cortez exclaimed. “‘Cause you’re not. ‘Cause you’re not. So, until you do it, I’m the boss. How ’bout that?”  – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 

The Freshman Congresswoman laid down the gauntlet to her critics after vocal bipartisan criticism surfaced. The official details of the proposal have been taken down, so it is possible, if not likely, that the key bullet points have changed. Ignoring the more dubious items like cow flatulence and ending airplane traffic that spawned a litany of viral memes, there are opportunities to make meaningful changes to combat climate change that a broad coalition of voters can get behind. To responsibly address climate change, we must address the economic costs and opportunities for working and middle-class citizens to transition and embrace green alternatives via taxes, free market principles and access, and cost-efficient technologies.

In 2010, President Obama attempted to push a carbon tax bill through Congress. At the time, it faced broad opposition due to new taxes and energy costs consumers/taxpayers would be forced to absorb. The idea, in that form, would be traded and sold as a Wall Street commodity, and not something average Americans would benefit from. Taxing carbon emissions disproportionately affects lower-income constituents because, for the most part, they cannot afford most new technologies. Energy-efficient refrigerators and fuel-efficient hybrids are not realistic purchases for people living paycheck-to-paycheck. To make carbon taxes remotely plausible, there needs to be a revenue-neutral offset for sales and income tax rates so that taxpayers are not out additional income. If the tax burden is not revenue neutral, the burden will be indirectly shouldered by the lowest income bracket. But, if income and other tax rates are offset, and taxpayers can potentially come out ahead by taking the initiative, you create the opportunity for meaningful change of habits that benefit our environment. Using the LEED Certifications from the US Green Building Council, we can propose several tax incentives that most taxpayers can readily qualify for that are both green and fiscally responsible.

First, we should provide meaningful tax breaks for property owners based on the energy efficiency of their buildings. When construction jobs are applying for LEED certification, one of the main focal points is the level of energy efficiency. Creating the incentive for homeowners or landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their property through insulation and other materials lowers energy costs and carbon output. These incentives can also apply to renters living in energy efficient complexes.

Second, we should provide tax breaks on the use of local raw materials and hydrologically efficient vegetation. This cuts down on the transportation costs for shipping materials, and it lowers water bills. The reality is most people want to be environmentally-friendly, but the dedication to this cause is directly related to the additional costs associated with this.

The dirty little secret about most environmental policies is the companies and industries that most environmental activists target are strong supporters of most climate change policies. Corporations like Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and hundreds more were all sponsors and supporters of the Paris Climate Accord. The biggest misnomer of the entire debate is these corporations are actively opposing these agreements. In most cases, these corporations are equipped for these policy changes, and are more interested in protecting their market share of their industry. This presents an opportunity to remove industrial barriers that prevent startup companies from entering the market place. Our capitalistic system is built on the competition. Removing the barriers of entry into the industries where customers have choices will spur new innovations. There is a market demand for cleaner technologies, and the only way to feed this demand is to remove the bureaucratic red tape that keeps these products from reaching the marketplace.

We live in an era of constant technological breakthroughs: smartphones, drones, video game consoles that function as entertainment hubs. Through universal Wi-fi access and 4G technologies, you can use an app to access, communicate, or purchase anything you want with a simple click of the button. The app’s viability is completely dependent on the convenience and affordability it provides. Leveraging this mentality is the key to making incremental, sustainable progress for combating climate change. Most people, regardless of party affiliation, will choose the greenest alternative if it is cost-competitive. In the last 15 years, we witnessed an explosion of green cost-competitive products, which lead to the average American having a smaller carbon footprint each year. To continue this trend, it is important to free up our markets so that new ideas and new businesses can enter and compete to make the fundamental changes that we need. 

This article was originally published on 1 March 2019.

Similar Read: Human Extinction (Brought to You by Capitalism)

Betrayal of the Coal Miner

No, coal is not coming back.

Among President Trump’s many campaign promises was to bring coal back, claiming to increase jobs to miners who are unemployed. Experts disagree, and cite a number of reasons, not the least of which is that other forms – including natural gas, hydroelectricity, and solar – have replaced coal as a viable and sustainable source of energy.

This is nothing new. Alternative sources of energy have been outpacing coal for years now. While federal regulations aimed at improving public health increased the pace of decline, experts say that natural gas is largely to blame. Cheaper and cleaner than coal, natural gas has increased in market share, forcing out coal as the dominant source of energy in this country.

The entire coal industry employed around 53,000 in 2016 – 25,000 of which are directly related to the actual mining and processing of coal. The industry has seen a nearly 39 percent decline since its most recent peak in 2008. Coal makes up a very small percentage of total employment numbers in this country.

The problem with this empty promise is that the vast majority of coal mining jobs are isolated to small pockets of Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky, where some 585 million tons of coal are extracted and processed. This means that miners are concentrated in very small areas where it is just about the only game in town. This puts those who work in the mines in a very precarious position. Most employed in the mining industry come from generations of family members who also made a living that way. This small section of the labor force saw Trump as the hero of the coal miner. So far, his actions have been anything but heroic.

The main driver of the promise, however, is that Trump has friends in the coal industry. Coal magnates like Wilbur Ross, the current commerce secretary, have been tight with Trump for years. Ross was the owner of the Sago Mine at the time of the explosion in 2006, killing 12 miners. He is also indirectly responsible, along with other investors of a failing mine they purchased, for stripping the health benefits of miners – some of which had black lung disease. Trump, Ross, and other billionaires are no friends of the people. Their sole goal is to line their pockets without a thought to the people whose lives are destroyed in the process.

It could be that Trump and his supporters genuinely believe that coal mining can come back into favor. This is dangerously delusional and patently unrealistic, and the laughable and completely bogus campaign of “clean coal” is intended to bolster that belief.

The bottom line: Trump is selling a bill of goods. There is no possible way that coal can come back to employ all those who have suffered in the wake of the decline. But some organizations are trying to help the coal miners train for and find skilled work in other sectors. But, Trump is seeking to axe those programs, putting unemployed miners in greater jeopardy.