President Obama's new Clean Power Plan is a serious attempt to solve an extremely serious and urgent problem: climate change. It sends the world a message about our commitment to addressing the problem. It is extraordinarily important for the U.S., as a world leader, to send this kind of message. And the results matter: the many effects of climate change threaten our health, our food sources, the very existence of coastal and low-lying communities, our wildlife, and, according to the Pentagon, our national security.
We are seeing more extreme weather, longer droughts, worse flooding, increased land desertification, and will be seeing the extinction of many animal species which cannot adapt quickly enough to changes in their habitat. Here in Alaska, we are seeing some of these effects already. One major threat is ocean acidification and the warming of the ocean and rivers, which threaten the existence of our fisheries. President Obama is right when he says, "if we want to protect our economy and our security and our children's health, we have to do more." We need action, not business as usual.
So, it is disappointing to see automatic partisan push-back against the Clean Power Plan. Sen. Murkowski expresses concern about "the burdens that (it) will impose across the country." We need to recognize that if we fail to drastically cut our emissions, climate change will impose far greater economic burdens.
The Risky Business Report (riskybusiness.org) lists the financial costs of health impacts, property and infrastructure damage, and even decreases in labor productivity, among other effects. Just one example: "by 2050 between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide, with $238 billion to $507 billion worth of property below sea level by 2100."
A different solution, which does not involve regulations, would be a carbon fee and dividend. It would levy a fee on all fossil fuels at the source (wellhead, mine, or port of entry) and rebate all the collected revenue to households (all of us).
Under one proposal, the fee starts out low and increases annually in a predictable manner until we reach a safe level of emissions. Because the fee (and the price of fossil fuel) goes up predictably over time, it would send a clear price signal to business to begin using fossil fuels more efficiently or replace them with low emissions energy. The rebate would protect consumers from price increases. This approach, which follows free-market principles, appeals to conservatives, and offers advantages over a regulatory system; corporations have signaled that they prefer its simplicity and predictability.
Prominent conservative economists, including Gary Mankiw, economic adviser to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, and Gary Becker, Nobel laureate, have supported this proposal. A major national study shows that it would not only cut emissions even more than the Clean Power Plan, but benefit the economy. The Clean Power Plan aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants (31 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions) by 32 percent below their 2005 levels, by 2030. A carbon fee and dividend system could cut overall CO2 emissions (not just from power plants) 33 percent after 10 years, and 52 percent after 20 years, relative to what would be seen under business as usual.
Nevertheless, the president's Clean Power Plan deserves support. It represents the most serious attempt yet to address climate change at a national level. Although it is bound to be imperfect, that is to be expected of any complex new system. It may only be a partial solution; but we need to be seeking, and supporting, all solutions that will contribute to solving the problem. Those who oppose this particular solution are under some obligation to at least propose a better idea. The U.S. is still a world leader, and we need to act like one.
Philip Somervell is a retired epidemiologist, and a volunteer with the Citizens' Climate Lobby. He lives in Palmer.
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(at)alaskadispatch.com.