Editor’s note: This commentary is by Newt Garland, of Fairfax, who is retired from GE. He is on the board of Vermonters for a Sustainable Population, as well as a member of several environmental groups.
[T]here is a vast amount of information and commentary about the problems the world faces. The problem of global warming or climate change has been on the table for many years and is increasingly viewed by thoughtful people as reaching a critical stage. Recently the pope has expressed concern as expressed in his remarkable document Laudato Si’. Last December the United Nations agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Humans are destroying their habitat and other life forms through excessive population, consumption, pollution, and waste. (E.O. Wilson’s new book, “Half Earth,” proposes a plan to save our imperiled biosphere). It is not practicable to reduce population which already far exceeds the earth’s carrying capacity. It is only ethical to support actions and policies (like free contraceptives) that reduce population growth. It is unfortunate that the pope did not address population growth in his encyclical letter.
Something can be done about consumption.
Science identifies the most immediate threat to our existence as climate change caused by the consumption, by humans, of fossil fuels. There is much discussion about the timing and magnitude of the threats and it will continue. There is also continued analysis of technology to prevent global warming, but a sure way to do this has not yet been invented.
The only practical way to prevent the continuation of global warming is to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but with worldwide emphasis on economic growth this approach receives insufficient attention.
The only practical way to prevent the continuation of global warming is to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but with worldwide emphasis on economic growth this approach receives insufficient attention.
For those who care, the actions available are as follows.
First, reduce personal consumption. Second, convince others to reduce consumption. Third, convince the power structure to adopt and institute policies that make consumption of fossil fuels uneconomic to users. A tax on fossil fuel (carbon pollution tax) consumption is the most efficient way to do this.
Dr. James Hansen, perhaps the nation’s most pre-eminent climate scientist, has been a forceful advocate of a U.S. revenue-neutral carbon tax since at least 2006. There is near unanimity among economists that carbon taxing is the optimal way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. See the website carbontax.org.
Worldwide effort to tax carbon (first done in Denmark in 1991) should be expanded. It has been very sucessful in British Columbia. According to the Vancouver Metro News, British Columbia mayors are now pushing for a higher carbon tax. The U.S. should adopt a carbon tax, but so far, efforts in Congress have been anemic and unsuccessful. As a primary contributor to the climate change problem, the U.S. should lead the way. Vermonters again have a chance to lead.
There is a coalition of environmental groups, Energy Independent Vermont, which is actively supporting passage in the Vermont Legislature of a carbon tax (H.395 and H.410 have been introduced). Check out their website (energyindependentvt.org), learn about the issues, join their activities. You will be doing a good thing.
