Before he flew away, the president left behind gifts of money and program changes to help rural Alaska repair damages brought by climate change. Unfortunately, these presidential dollars won't stop the ocean from marching into people's living rooms, or cooling down creeks where our salmon spawn or end acidifying the Bering Sea. For that we need a solution big enough to fit the problem. A solution that leads to a large cut in carbon dioxide pollution and at the same time doesn't endanger the well-being of people in rural Alaska. A new study from UAA's Institute for Social and Economic Research shows that by enacting carbon fee and dividend legislation, Congress can accomplish both of these and more.
How does a carbon fee and dividend work? Under carbon fee and dividend, a fee is collected on fossil fuels where they come out of the ground. The fee starts low but rises steadily. The revenue generated by the fees is returned to all American families as a monthly dividend.
Carbon fee and dividend is revenue-neutral since the government doesn't keep any of the money; people do. Because it relies on the market — not bureaucratic regulations — there is broad agreement among economists that a carbon fee when coupled with a 100 percent rebate to American households is the most efficient, transparent, simple, and fair way to control CO2 emissions.
A large national study by Regional Economic Modeling Inc. has already shown that a carbon fee and dividend will produce big reductions in CO2, add jobs, and grow the U.S. economy.
But what about Alaska — especially rural Alaska? It is so different than the rest of the United States. Fuel prices in small villages are more than double those Outside. Electricity, generated primarily from diesel, is the most costly in the U.S. People rely on motors to get them to fish camps, traplines, and traditional hunting places.
Is it possible to put a price on carbon pollution and not make the lives of rural Alaskans harder? Members of Citizens' Climate Lobby realized this question had to be answered before our members of Congress would support a carbon fee and dividend proposal.
The ISER study shows a fee and dividend system will actually improve the economic lives of most rural Alaskans.
According to Dr. Steven Colt, the study focused on three areas with the highest fuel prices in the state: Northwest Arctic Borough, as well as the Kusilvak and Bethel census areas. He concluded that both small and large households in all three regions will receive more in dividends each year than they will pay in increased costs due to the fee – by a wide margin for most households.
This seems counterintuitive. How can people in the highest price areas of the state break even, let alone come out ahead, if the price of fuel rises? Primarily this is because people in rural Alaska are already frugal since fuel and electricity prices are so high (which shows how adding a carbon price will exert pressure to conserve.) Also, they will receive a dividend that ensures the transition to more carbon efficient lifestyles is a smooth one for families.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Congressman Don Young have often expressed concern about the high cost of fuel and electricity in rural Alaska. And well they should. But they and Sen. Dan Sullivan also need to show concern for the long-term security of rural Alaska by committing to pass meaningful climate legislation.
Air Force One and Marine One have flown south, the words Secret Service and motorcade have dropped out of local press coverage, and the glacier photo-ops and cardboard cut-out selfies have faded. But, our streams still heat up and seas sour from excess carbon dioxide. Alaska towns continue to wash away, and ice packs recede. The ground keeps thawing, and even on Kodiak Island, wildfires strike.
In the slipstream of the historic and hopeful presidential visit, it is time for Congress to quit passing the buck to the administration and start the heavy lifting of enacting rational and workable climate legislation.
George Donart is a Yukon River commercial fisherman and a member of the Anchorage chapter of Citizens' Climate Lobby. More information is available online at www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/publications.php and https://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com