Carbon Tax to Save the Environment

It is time to talk about a very scary subject for politicians. CARBON TAX! A means of controlling carbon pollution. A means of avoiding what could be an environmental catastrophe. The two words are some of the most avoided words in Washington, mostly due to the coal industry's strangle hold on energy production. This isn't a partisan issue either; current Bush, Clinton, and past Bush all avoided any form of carbon tax like the plague. The issue is not going away though, in fact it is becoming more and more important every minute coal production increases. As much as politicians would like to stick their heads in the ground like ostriches, we (the public) need to call for a reasonable solution that both heals the catastrophic effects of coal production, but doesn’t destroy an industry that provides jobs to thousands.

American production of coal is increasing, and according to the EIA, is not only projected to increase, but increase faster “Overall, our current expectation is for coal production in 2005 to grow more rapidly than it did in 2004.” Currently the U.S. is only 5% of the world’s population, but accounts for 20% of anthropogenic (human caused) emissions. The primary “greenhouse” gas is carbon dioxide, and it is easy to see the problem with coal when you realize it is made up of 60-80% carbon. Sulfur and nitrogen oxide are also produced, but big steps have been taken to reduce sulfur emissions by 33% despite growth in total production increasing 50%. Carbon dioxide has made no such progress however, mainly because the carbon in coal is the primary source of heat when burned.

The EIA in it’s annual report published this April shows that coal in America is used almost entirely for electricity at over 90%, totaling 52.5% of the American power sector. In order to reduce the emissions caused by coal, one or a combination of three things needs to happen:

A. Supplement/replace coal with renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar
B. Increase uranium based nuclear(0% carbon), natural gas (20% carbon), or oil (40-50%) energy.
C. Develop better methods of energy production from coal by investing in new technologies.

Unfortunately, renewable energy sources are just not up to the task yet. In a plain matter of speaking, it would be wonderful if we could cover the earth with solar panels and windmills, but on a cost basis the market will not support it because of the fiscal ease of coal production. Although nuclear energy doesn’t produce any greenhouse emissions, the inability to properly dispose of the nuclear waste still any left-wing liberal scream bloody murder; politically, nuclear and natural gas based energy see very little success, as Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research explains in a conversation on the future of energy:

…if you want the U.S. politics, you can just go on our walk-through--natural gas, oil, and coal--and ask yourself--I mean, this is the country that has coal in West Virginia, in many Democratic places, and we have never been willing to touch coal. We will suppress uranium, but we burn more coal. We'll flip back and forth on natural gas, but we burn more coal. You know our energy policy, the core of our energy policy since 1980, when all is said and done, has nothing to do with anything except coal. We have burned more coal and still more coal. We are burning a billion tons a year of coal, and we're not about to change that. It's politically very powerful.

So we’re left with relying on coal producing companies to develop technologies to reduce their carbon dioxide output? It doesn’t take long to figure out that that won’t happen. Currently there are no restrictions on carbon emissions in the U.S. Which leads me to the two dirty words, carbon tax.

A tax on carbon would isolate the responsibility on the market. Say a tax is implemented, the coal industry would be forced to react, investing in lower emissions plants and better burning techniques. Although environmentally sound, it does not bode well for the coal industry, and with their political clout is not very likely. To sweeten the deal, I prefer the ideas of Paul Roberts, who suggests implementing a tax 20 years down the road, and in the meantime subsidizing the coal industries in order help them develop the technology.

at some point we need to say, "Look markets, avoid carbon, but do it any way you want. If you could find a way to convert tar sands into fuel and take the carbon out and do it cost effectively, great. We don't really care. Just do it. If you can find some other way to produce energy and then lower your carbon emissions, great. We don't care."

On the plus sides, the subsidies will in the long run be paid off by future tax. Nuclear and natural gas industries will support such a tax because it has little or no effect on them. But most importantly, it will reduce our carbon emissions to a reasonable level.

If this issue continues to go unnoticed in the public eye, the consequences could be catastrophic. According to scenarios created by the U.N. Environment Programme’s Vital Change Graphics Update (PDF 5.5mb) the on average result in temperature rise for the year 2100 is 3°C (5.4F), with some scenarios reaching as high as 5.8°C (10.4F). These same projections show an average sea level rise of about .3 meters (1 foot), going as high as .8 meters (2.4 feet). In turn this can lead to a threat of coastal populaces, decrease in croplands, increase of extreme events, and an extension of areas of parasitic diseases.

It is our responsibility now to make sure that those scenarios do not come true. It is our responsibility both as a giant in production and consumption of carbon based energy sources, but also as a country with the means to mend the world-effecting wounds we have inflicted. We as a country are up to the challenge. We are the richest country in the world, but that is no excuse for being the dirtiest.