I appreciate the response by Christopher Riddle to my guest column on carbon offsets (“Widespread carbon offsets essential for reaching climate goals, Nov. 16) as it raised some good issues and gives me a chance to clarify my thinking. The offsets I am proposing would be progressive and required, which means that they would operate similarly to income taxes. Households with a small carbon footprint would not pay any offset while those with a lifestyle that causes a lot of greenhouse gas emissions would be have to pay an offset proportional to the size of their footprint.
The IRS was given a large influx of new funding in the IRA bill and I assume that the assessment and collection of the offset fees could be delegated to them as an additional responsibility. To some degree, the infrastructure for this expanded role already exists.
The carbon offsets would also serve to increase awareness about the climate impacts of daily decisions and actions. Psychologists refer to this as performance feedback and it is an effective means for changing behavior. If individuals were to see the numbers for how much CO2 their choices have sent into the atmosphere, they would likely make an effort to change them. We see this when the posted speed limit on a road is accompanied by a flashing sign showing our current speed.
I recognize that this idea shifts the usual thinking about how to address global warming. The focus of energies within the environmental movement has largely been about changing the sources of energy production from fossil fuels to renewables — the supply side of the equation. However, the role of individual behaviors has generally been overlooked or dismissed but that’s where much of the demand comes from. The climate situation is so dire that it’s not a matter of either/or but both/and.
A required, progressive carbon offset would address that demand in a targeted manner with penalties for those most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. With the IRA bill, the government has put in place many incentives for consumers to reduce demand on fossil fuels and a carbon offset fee will provide additional motivation to make those changes.
I certainly recognize that there are both technical and political challenges to enacting such a plan. But it was not long ago that we had to go through toll booths when exiting the Turnpike and now electronic transponders on cars have changed that. I suspect that there are technological solutions for collecting the data on household carbon footprints but the major challenge is likely to be political, as many would see this as a further intrusion of government into individual privacy. Nevertheless, I think the idea is worth consideration and, given the desperate need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly, it might even be necessary.
Joe Silverman
Florence