Jaham Alamzad’s opinion piece, “Impact investing insufficient for climate emergency" in the Nov. 29 edition raises a number of very valid points about the actions needed to address the climate crisis, including government and private investment in clean energy. Indeed, the tax credits and subsidies for renewable energy and electric vehicles in the president’s Build Back Better Act, along with the increasing efforts by private companies and investors to develop clean energy sources, are a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, such actions, even if carried out at an international scale, will not be sufficient to keep global temperature increase resulting from greenhouse gas emissions to less than 1.5 degrees C. The main problem is that such policies and investments address climate change in a piecemeal fashion, one solution at a time.
However, there is one economywide, market-based policy that offers a powerful tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: it is called putting a price on carbon. By imposing a gradually increasing fee on the carbon content of fossil fuels (paid by energy producers), the resultant price increase would lower the demand for fossil fuels, making renewable energy more competitively priced, and attracting increasing investment. The resulting shift to renewables would result in a large reduction in carbon dioxide emissions — an estimated 30% by 2030 and over 90% by 2050. Rebating the collected fees back to households would more than offset the increase in energy prices for over 60% of families. Carbon pricing should be included in the Build Back Better Act.
Sorry Bob - the recent increase in gasoline prices has not reduced consumption. You are making the erroneous assumption that an increase in energy by taxing carbon will reduce energy consumption. That is simply not proven and it would just place another burden on those who depend on transportation, which is likely all of us. The Carbon Bill is a pure pipedream and would only be supported by those who have no economic rationale.
Mr. Steele – as long as you can get the other elephants in the room, China, India, and other growing economies, such as Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa to join the income re-distribution plan known as the carbon tax, maybe I’ll get on board. As it is, these countries aren’t doing much to control their carbon emissions. Until we get those countries on board, any efforts to soak the rich, and poor, and everyone in between to support this supposed global warming tax thing will fall among deaf ears. And let’s not forget that folks willing to pay someone to plant trees in Antarctica are excused from reducing any of their carbon emissions. They can continue to emit to their hearts desires.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
Sorry Bob - the recent increase in gasoline prices has not reduced consumption. You are making the erroneous assumption that an increase in energy by taxing carbon will reduce energy consumption. That is simply not proven and it would just place another burden on those who depend on transportation, which is likely all of us. The Carbon Bill is a pure pipedream and would only be supported by those who have no economic rationale.
Mr. Steele – as long as you can get the other elephants in the room, China, India, and other growing economies, such as Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa to join the income re-distribution plan known as the carbon tax, maybe I’ll get on board. As it is, these countries aren’t doing much to control their carbon emissions. Until we get those countries on board, any efforts to soak the rich, and poor, and everyone in between to support this supposed global warming tax thing will fall among deaf ears. And let’s not forget that folks willing to pay someone to plant trees in Antarctica are excused from reducing any of their carbon emissions. They can continue to emit to their hearts desires.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.