As a member of the Citizen’s Climate Lobby (CCL), I’ve supported the Energy Innovation & Carbon Dividend bill (H.R. 2307), proposed in the current House of Representatives. Numerous studies have shown that putting an escalating fee on fossil fuels is an effective means for quickly reducing emissions while also stimulating innovation. In this bill, the fees raised are returned as a dividend to citizens on a per capita basis.
However, with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (a.k.a., the climate bill), in addition to the Infrastructure and CHIPS bills, the environment of climate advocacy has shifted dramatically. For years, the oft-repeated aphorism was that we have the technology for solving global warming but the only thing missing was the political will. Now, more than ever, it seems that the only thing missing is the social will. The IRA will incentivize the public to make sustainable choices, such as reducing the cost of electric vehicles. but it’s not certain that citizens will abandon their attachment to gas-driven vehicles unless they recognize the necessity of doing so.
A recent study by the Pew Research Center looked at concerns about global threats among citizens in 19 countries with advanced economies. The primary issue of concern across all the countries was climate change, followed by the spread of disinformation and cyberattacks. However, in the United States, concern about climate change was ranked next to last as compared with citizens in the 18 other countries.
The Emissions Gap Report 2020 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), analyzed the gap between the reduction in emissions needed to limit global warming and the actions taken by the nations who signed onto the Paris Accord. Two studies cited in that report estimated that household consumption accounts for about two-thirds of GHG emissions. A study from the International Energy Agency supported these findings, noting that behavior changes are essential for reaching climate goals.
The emissions generated in the day-to-day actions of individuals are referred to as their carbon footprint. Not surprisingly, the emissions of the wealthy far outweigh those with more modest or low incomes. One analysis found that the combined emissions share of the top 1 percent of income earners was much larger than, and perhaps double, that of the bottom 50 percent.
There is also a significant disparity among nations. The average American is responsible for approximately 17.6 tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions per year, which is about 10 times those of citizens in India and more than double those in the UK and the EU.
In lieu of an across-the-board carbon fee, perhaps it makes more sense to require carbon offsets of individual households based on their carbon footprint. Aside from the public outcry about adding to the already inflated price of gasoline, I have doubts that billionaires who own private jets and yachts will be motivated to change their behaviors with additional fuel costs. A carbon offset is a reduction of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions taken to compensate for gases emitted elsewhere. Because greenhouse gases mix into the planetary atmosphere, it does not matter where the removal occurs. It is always preferable to act such that GHG emissions are not generated to begin with; however, that is not always possible and purchasing a carbon offset can lower the impact of those actions.
A major source of disagreement at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) has been between developed and developing nations. This is an important topic at the current COP in Egypt, stimulated in part by the devastating floods in Pakistan, a country that has contributed little to global warming. The citizens of developed nations have a comfortable standard of living that has come at the cost of a sustainable climate and developing nations are most at-risk from climate catastrophes while they have contributed little to this crisis. Those nations need substantial financial and technical support in adapting to the deadly climate impacts and to improve the wellbeing of their populations without exacerbating global warming. A Climate Fund was established to facilitate that development but the financial commitments made by developed nations have not been reached. This was, of course, made worse by the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Accord under Trump and his refusal to contribute to the Climate Fund.
While there are obstacles to collecting the necessary information for a progressive, required carbon offset, it seems technically feasible. Much of the information is readily available, such as the kilowatts of electricity or cubic feet of natural gas used by households. The emissions of vehicles could be estimated based on the make and model of the vehicle and yearly miles driven, collected at times of renewal of registration or insurance. The data on emissions from private jets and large boats should be obtainable from flight plans, GPS, or quantities of fuel being pumped. This information would be used to assess a carbon offset with all, or most, of the money raised given to the UN Climate Fund. The multi-millionaires and billionaires who protest the offset could choose to reduce their carbon footprints by putting solar panels on their houses, flying private jets with sustainable aviation fuel, or docking their yachts and using sailboats.
Joe Silverman lives in Florence.