Because conservatives heart climate policy?
This summer, a friend sent me a remarkable headline from The Seattle Times: “ ‘Green’ Alliance Opposes Petition to Tax Carbon.”
My initial thought was that this doesn’t make sense. It is like reading “Democrats Rally to Cut the Minimum Wage” or “Republicans Unite to Hike Income Taxes.”
But the political debate in Washington State is a case study about why smart environmental policy is so hard to enact.
First, some background. ...
Environmentalists in the United States would do well to look north at the successes achieved in a Canadian province. In 2008, British Columbia introduced a revenue-neutral carbon tax similar to that being proposed for Washington.
The results of the policy have been what advocates promised. The use of fossil fuels in British Columbia has fallen compared with the rest of Canada. But economic growth has not suffered.
What is most noteworthy, however, is that the policy was championed by a right-of-center government that did not previously have close ties to the environmental movement.
It was a Nixon-goes-to-China moment: Gordon Campbell, British Columbia’s premier, had more credibility by acting against type. Because of the government’s conservative credentials and its commitment to make the policy revenue-neutral, it brought along the crucial support of the business community.
Could such a situation happen in the United States? Right now, it is hard to imagine, as many of the Republicans vying for the presidential nomination pander to the deniers of climate change. But the experience of British Columbia suggests that this attitude could change.
This brings me back to my friend, Yoram Bauman, who sent me that headline. He is an environmental economist and stand-up comedian (yes, an unusual combo). He is also one of the leaders of the effort in Washington State to pass a carbon tax. He has been working tirelessly to build support.
Based on his experiences, he has a message for environmental activists: “I am increasingly convinced that the path to climate action is through the Republican Party. Yes, there are challenges on the right — skepticism about climate science and about tax reform — but those are surmountable with time and effort. The same cannot be said of the challenges on the left: an unyielding desire to tie everything to bigger government, and a willingness to use race and class as political weapons in order to pursue that desire.”
Yoram Bauman is a funny guy, but this time he is not joking.
via www.nytimes.com
Despite its foreboding title, this article was sailing along fairly well. There is a lot that environmental groups seem to get wrong about environmental economics, sure enough. The opposition in Washington state seems particularly misguided. The article was sailing along fairly well until it got partisan. I think the appropriate place for it to end is with this line: "But the experience of British Columbia suggests that this attitude could change." Or, maybe, it should have ended with "Yoram Bauman is a funny guy." And note that the the Washington state carbon tax initiative that Yoram is working on "... is a widely endorsed bipartisan solution that will cut pollution, reduce other taxes and create jobs" (emphasis added). Did Yoram just take the bi out of partisan?
I don't really understand how one can say that the Republican Party is where efficient climate policy will happen. It certainly won't come out of the current Senate. A large amount, 62%, of the variation in the recent Senate votes on whether humans significantly contribute to climate change depend on ideology and political party (in expected directions). Also, consider this:
From the Daily Caller (a politically conservative news and opinion website):
Senate lawmakers passed an amendment Thursday that would block the federal government from taxing carbon dioxide emissions, a popular idea among Democrats to fight global warming.
Four Democrats joined Senate Republicans in backing the amendment to the 2016 budget bill introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican. The amendment would create a reserve fund that would prevent the government from taxing carbon emissions from emitting entities, like power plants or refineries.
“Once again, a majority of Congress has spoken out against a carbon tax,” Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement after the vote.
Over the past four years, the Republican Party has undergone a fairly dramatic shift in its approach to energy and environmental issues. Global warming has disappeared entirely from the party's list of concerns. Clean energy has become an afterthought. Fossil fuels loom larger than ever. And one way to see this shift clearly is to compare the party's 2008 and 2012 platforms.
It may seem difficult to believe now, but back in 2008, the Republican Party's platform (pdf) had a long and detailed section on "Addressing Climate Change Responsibly."...
The 2008 platform went on to call for "technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy." ...
Skip ahead to 2012, and the GOP platform takes a markedly different tone. That section devoted to climate change? Gone. Instead, the platform flatly opposes "any and all cap and trade legislation" to curtail greenhouse gases. It demands that Congress "take quick action to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations."
I would be delighted if the current Republican Party became the Republican Party of 2008. While you can cherry pick and find Republicans who are concerned about climate change (and one presidential candidate), I think "the key role of [most] conservatives" is to change the minds of Republican leaders about climate policy. However, I am not optimistic given what seem to be current litmus test Republican issues: "skepticism about climate science and about tax reform."
