Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

A Conservative Answer to Climate Change

Enacting a carbon tax would free up private firms to find the most efficient ways to cut emissions.

By and Comments

Photo by Torsten Blackwood/Getty Images

Thirty years ago, as the atmosphere’s protective ozone layer was dwindling at alarming rates, we were serving proudly under President Ronald Reagan. We remember his leading role in negotiating the Montreal Protocol, which continues to protect and restore the delicate ozone layer. Today the world faces a similar challenge: the threat of climate change.

Just as in the eighties, there is mounting evidence of problems with the atmosphere that are growing too compelling to ignore. And, once again, there is uncertainty about what lies ahead. The extent to which climate change is due to man-made causes can be questioned. But the risks associated with future warming are so severe that they should be hedged.

The responsible and conservative response should be to take out an insurance policy. Doing so need not rely on heavy-handed, growth-inhibiting government regulations. Instead, a climate solution should be based on a sound economic analysis that embodies the conservative principles of free markets and limited government.

We suggest a solution that rests on four pillars. First, creating a gradually increasing carbon tax. Second, returning the tax proceeds to the American people in the form of dividends. Third, establishing border carbon adjustments that protect American competitiveness and encourage other countries to follow suit. And fourth, rolling back government regulations once such a system is in place.

The first pillar, a carbon tax, is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. Unlike the current cumbersome regulatory approach, a levy on emissions would free companies to find the most efficient way to reduce their carbon footprint. A sensibly priced, gradually rising tax would send a powerful market signal to businesses that want certainty when planning for the future.

A “carbon dividend” payment, the second pillar, would have tax proceeds distributed to the American people on a quarterly basis. This way, the revenue-neutral tax would benefit working families rather than bloat government spending. A $40-per-ton carbon tax would provide a family of four with roughly $2,000 in carbon dividends in the first year, an amount that could grow over time as the carbon tax rate increased.

A carbon dividends policy could spur larger reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions than all of President Obama’s climate policies. At the same time, our plan would strengthen the economy, help working-class Americans, and promote national security, all while reducing regulations and shrinking the size of government.

The third pillar is a border adjustment for carbon content. When American companies export to countries without comparable carbon pricing systems, they would receive rebates on the carbon taxes they have paid. Imports from such countries, meanwhile, would face fees on the carbon content of their products. Proceeds from such fees would also be returned to the American people through carbon dividends. Pioneering such a system would put America in the driver’s seat of global climate policy. It would also promote American competitiveness by penalizing countries whose lack of carbon-reduction policies would otherwise give them an unfair trade advantage.

The eventual elimination of regulations no longer necessary after the enactment of a carbon tax would constitute the final pillar. Almost all of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority over carbon emissions could be eliminated, including an outright repeal of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Robust carbon taxes would also justify ending federal and state tort liability for emitters.

With these principles in mind, on Wednesday the Climate Leadership Council is unveiling “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends.” The report was co-authored by conservative thinkers Martin Feldstein,Henry Paulson Jr., Gregory Mankiw, Ted Halstead, Tom Stephenson, and Rob Walton.

This carbon dividends program would help steer the U.S. toward a path of more durable economic growth by encouraging technological innovation and large-scale substitution of existing energy sources. It would also provide much-needed regulatory relief to U.S. industries. Companies, especially those in the energy sector, finally would have the predictability they now lack, removing one of the most serious impediments to capital investment.

Perhaps most important, the carbon-dividends plan speaks to the increasing frustration and economic insecurity experienced by many working-class Americans. The plan would elevate the fortunes of the nation’s less-advantaged while strengthening the economy. A Treasury Department report published last month predicts that carbon dividends would mean income gains for about 70% of Americans.

This plan will also be good for the long-term prospects of the Republican Party. About two-thirds of Americans worry a “great deal” or “fair amount” about climate change, according to a 2016 Gallup survey. Polls often show concern about climate change is higher among younger voters, and among Asians and Hispanics, the fastest-growing demographic groups. A carbon-dividends plan provides an opportunity to appeal to all three demographics.

Controlling the White House and Congress means that Republicans bear the responsibility of exercising wise leadership on the defining challenges of our era. Climate change is one of these issues. It is time for the Grand Old Party to once again lead the way.

This piece was originally published in the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Shultz was secretary of state (1982-89) and Treasury secretary (1972-74). Mr. Baker was secretary of state (1989-92) and Treasury secretary (1985-88).

Related Content

  • Charlie Primero

    Is Texas Monthly really promoting the Anthropogenic Global Warming crap?

    We can visit Huffpo and Jezebel for that.

    • St. Anger

      or anywhere else reason is peddled.

      • texasflooring

        Or in your case, alternative reason.

        • Evarkrueger

          Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !st12c:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !st12c:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs302ShopRateGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!sw22c:….,……..

    • Stephaniepruiz

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !sr14c:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !sr14c:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs304MarketGuardGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!sr14c:….,….

    • r.g. ratcliffe

      Let’s see, this is a Reagan SOS and a George HW SOS, and the new Trump SOS promoted the same cap and trade idea several years ago. It’s not like these guys are Bernie Sanders liberals.

      • WISEONE

        This isn’t “cap and trade”, this is a straight up energy tax that will raise the price of everything in the nation and put us into a recession that will make the last one look like an economic boon.

    • WISEONE

      Every chance they get.

  • biff

    Yes, a measured response to something that is irreversible now. Exactly what we need.

    • St. Anger

      yeah, i like the “free businesses up to find efficiencies” angle.

      how about “make businesses pay for instead of profiting from the damage they are doing and have done”?

      • WISEONE

        Business doesn’t “pay” for any of it. They’ll simply raise prices to cover the costs.

        • St. Anger

          ok. would you rather pay for your impact on the planet in the form of prices or taxes?

          either way works for me.

  • WISEONE

    What the article is proposing, plain and simple, is a massive energy tax that will be paid by the consumers.
    Prices of everything in the nation will rise exponentially to reflect the new, higher costs of extraction, production, processing, packaging and transportation.
    This would be an unending, ever increasing, conveyor belt of taxpayer money going directly to Washington and their cronies.
    The idea that the government is going to “refund” or “rebate” any of these costs is absurd. A government that’s at least 20 Trillion in the red isn’t going to “rebate” anything to anybody.
    Washington will take this tax money and apply it to vote getting projects like immigrant welfare programs and bridges to nowhere.
    Taxing imports from nations that don’t have similar carbon tax programs in place will again fall on the shoulders of American consumers. It’s simply a tariff by another name.
    How otherwise sensible people can read tripe like this and believe any of it is amazing. But I guess they’re still trying to figure out what happened to their $2500 a year ObamaCare savings.

  • Jimmy

    This is an excellent idea! Since all fees collected would be rebated to taxpayers, it is not technically a tax. And since it given back to taxpayers equally, virtually all of it will go into purchases. The stimulus provided by the dividend would more than offset the drag of the fee or tax. Most of the major oil companies are on record as being for a carbon tax. The certainty provided by a known tax rate for years to come is preferred by them to the current uncertain regulatory environment. Additionally, this fee and dividend system would be much, much cheaper to administrate than regulations.

    Texas is already the leader in wind energy. Already wind and solar are competitive with coal for electricity generation. Texas has much to gain from this proposal and can continue to be an energy leader as the world shifts from fossil fuels to low carbon fuels. As it currently stands, China has become the leader in solar and is a top contender in wind technology.