A group of Republican elder statesmen is calling for a tax on carbon emissions to fight climate change.
If the president is open to taking the advice in Todd Stern’s Jan. 25 op-ed, “The deal of the century on climate,” he should do so by pursuing the one option that would also help him deliver on tax reform and infrastructure. That option is a carbon fee, which a large majority of economists (and our incoming secretary of state) say is the quickest, most efficient and most potent solution to climate change. If Congress finally puts a price on carbon emissions, the free market will drive down the use of carbon. That’s what Canada is doing
Re “At Exxon, Nominee Steered Company’s ‘Evolution’ on Climate” (news article, Dec. 29):
Exxon Mobil supports a carbon tax as the best approach for policy makers because it would ensure a uniform and predictable cost of carbon across the economy, allow market forces to drive solutions and maximize transparency to stakeholders.
If letter-writer Blane Morse wants to give nuclear power a boost, he should be singing the praises of a carbon tax instead of criticizing it [“Nuclear power, not a carbon tax, can stop global warming,” letters, Nov. 1]. Today, nuclear power is not cost-competitive in part because we subsidize fossil fuels, which do not cover their external costs. Impose a carbon fee at a significant level ($30 or more) to remove that subsidy, and nuclear would become competitive again.
Yes, disclosure of climate-related economic risks is important, but on its own will accomplish very little (“Enlist the Market in the Climate-Change Fight,” op-ed, Aug. 19). I had hoped that Brian Deese and Jeff Zients would then move to the essential second step: creating incentives for the market to deliver solutions to climate change.
Even before the devastating flooding began in Louisiana last week, and we learned thatJuly 2016 shattered all global temperature records, mounting data had demonstrated the growing risks climate change poses to the global economy. Whether you are an investor assessing the $2 trillion in bonds that Moody’s found carry elevated near-term climate risk, one of the nearly two million U.S. homeowners facing significant risk from climate-related flooding, or a U.S. taxpayer staring at $360 billion in direct government costs from extreme weather over the past decade—these threats are looming, large and increasing.