Not a job killer
Recent op-eds show why the science of climate change makes it clear we need to tax carbon. The recent Risky Business report projects the future economic cost will be crushing if we do not act swiftly to make dramatic carbon emission reductions, and it also backs a carbon tax.
The main opposition to such a tax has been the assumption that it would be a job killer.
It turns out that’s not true.
If we act quickly, we can cut emissions more and faster than EPA regulations and benefit our economy at the same time, adding $1 trillion to our GDP and 2.8 million jobs. According to a REMI report, taxing fossil fuels and giving that tax money directly to our citizens, about $400 a month per family, would allow most low-income and middle-class Americans to benefit financially.
Having the tax escalating annually will ensure that people will switch to cheaper clean energy, and the same tax on imports, according to how high their carbon emissions are, will be a powerful incentive for nations like China to reduce their emissions. That tax money will also go to consumers, so they won’t be hurt financially, and they could use that money to buy U.S. goods, which the tax will make cheaper and cheaper than imports, thus revitalizing our manufacturing sector.
As solar and wind energy scale up, they’ll become cheaper than fossil fuels are now. Their prices are dropping exponentially each year, and in some states they’re already price competitive, reliable and practical.
This revenue-neutral approach to taxing carbon is endorsed by most economists.
See the Citizens Climate Lobby website for more information. Please contact your congressional representatives if you support it.
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed