Businesses drown, not just people and
homes
By Julie Fox Gorte
By Julie Fox Gorte
History offers a great many examples of individuals, groups and societies that
lived too much in the moment and compromised longer term prosperity -- or in
some cases (think Easter Island) even survival. It's the same with climate
change today. We're past the point where we can debate whether to act. We can
either act prudently and account for long-term risk or face catastrophe.
Want
proof? One: almost three million people in the US live less than three feet
above the average high tide, according to a recent report from the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
Two:
s after Hurricane Sandy, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was
fiscally insolvent, and required legislation and a $28 billion taxpayer bailout
to fix temporarily. Three: sea levels on the northeast coast of North America
rose 128 mm, or over five inches, in 2009-10 alone, and we'll likely need to
prepare for more extreme sea level rise in the future.
Broader
consequences are worse: the Stern Review estimated a loss of 5 percent of global
GDP, "now and forever," by not addressing climate change. Business as
usual, in short, is a recipe for economic decline.
It is normal to think that a new tax would depress economic growth, but
that's not necessarily the case -- and it's also a short-term view. This is
also a moment when the options to replace the most carbon-intensive fossil
fuels to make electricity are economically attractive, with solar and wind at
or near grid parity.
Carbon taxes can help move us to a renewable electricity
system without imposing a long-term burden on ratepayers. Moreover, not
subsidizing fossil fuels, which the world does to the tune of half a trillion
dollars, can save taxes.
A
carbon tax is the most efficient way to keep fossil fuels, which are a major
driver of global warming, in the ground. That conclusion comes from the US
Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that conducts economic and
budget analysis for Congress. Efficiency, in this context, measures emissions
reduction per dollar of administrative cost.
The best part? Done right, theres
no reason this can't help grow the economy, as well as tackle the threat of
climate change. A good example is that of British Columbia. Its revenue-neutral
carbon tax, instituted in 2008, has led to a 16 percent drop in fuel use
(compared to three percent growth in the rest of the country) while its GDP
growth kept pace with the rest of the country. A 2012 poll found that 64
percent of British Columbians supported the tax.
Business
groups often oppose new taxes, but that stereotype isn't accurate this time.
The 200,000 businesses represented by the American Sustainable Business Council
has called for a price on carbon. They recognize how dangerous climate change
could be if we don't act, as evidenced by polling that shows more than half of
all small business owners think it will affect their business -- or already
has.
An economy-wide price would send a clear market signal that it is time to
address the adverse economic impacts of climate change, such as rising food and
transportation costs and expensive infrastructure upgrades. A tax could also
substitute for various energy subsidies and reduce business uncertainty. It
could also be used to reduce payroll income taxes.
Some
will fight hard against putting a price on carbon. It's time recognize that the
market has failed to account for the full costs of carbon pollution and that a
national tax would bring about greater economic efficiencies. Prolonging our
dependence on fossil fuels will only increase the eventual cost for the global
economy. Taxing carbon is one effective way to avoid that cost.
Gorte,
Ph.D. is the Senior Vice President for Sustainable Investing at Pax World
Management LLC.