Wharton Sinkler: Carbon fees would incentivize fossil fuel alternatives

To The Daily Sun,

Climate change is already affecting our state: winter ice on our lakes is thinner and less reliable; precipitation is increasing, particularly downpours; temperatures are climbing, including record-breaking warmth last December. The scientific consensus is strong that warmer temperatures and other effects are being caused by human use of fossil fuels, which has caused atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase 50%, to higher than it’s been in three million years.

The situation is dangerous, but there are ways to address it, by developing and implementing alternatives to fossil fuels. To avoid more harmful changes, we need prompt and decisive action. An important way to jump-start progress is by creating incentives which reward lower fossil fuel use, innovation of new technology, and investments in clean energy.

The most straightforward way to create this incentive is to put a price on fossil-based carbon, via a carbon tax, often referred to as a carbon fee. A carbon fee which starts low and increases gradually would make it more expensive to dump carbon from fossil fuel into the atmosphere, while the revenue from the carbon fee could be returned as a monthly payment to households. That is known as carbon cash-back: the monthly rebate keeps the economy strong and helps Americans with their expenses, while the carbon fee encourages progress in things like low-carbon technology. Carbon cash-back has been endorsed by over 3,500 United States economists across the political spectrum, including four Federal Reserve chairs and 28 Nobel laureates.

Unfortunately, New Hampshire’s House of Representatives is considering a resolution which would renounce all use of carbon pricing. The resolution, HR 17, will be voted on as soon as March 10. It is a misguided piece of legislation, which if passed would erect hurdles toward the fair and effective incentive needed to reduce carbon emissions.

The resolution misrepresents carbon pricing, claiming it would cause abrupt and unsustainable increases in electricity and transportation costs. In fact, the carbon fee in real proposals for carbon cash-back starts small and increases gradually over time, giving people and businesses time to adjust. HR 17 also ignores the possibility of returning revenue in a monthly rebate to households with carbon cash-back, and the resulting benefits to the economy and consumers. Here in New Hampshire the rationale for carbon cash-back is particularly strong, since nearly 60% of our electricity already comes from non-emitting sources. Thus, the carbon fee would fall lightly on our residents, and they would overwhelmingly come out ahead via the rebate. As we transition away from fossil fuels in electricity and other areas, less and less carbon fee is paid.

This is the only planet we’ll ever live on, and we need to leave it in good shape for our kids and grandkids. The most expensive action on climate would be a failure to act. None of this is considered by HR 17, which is why it deserves a speedy and decisive rejection by our legislature.

Wharton Sinkler

Sandwich