What should be done to prevent potential catastrophic climate change? Democratic Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Edward Markey are proposing a modern day version of Roosevelt's New Deal, this time to deal with climate change.
Meantime, a significant percentage of Republicans continue to believe that the problem has been way overblown. In their minds, enacting something like the proposed Green New Deal would be wasteful and ineffective, especially because many continue to doubt that humans are causing climate change.
Greenhouse gas induced climate change is a very real problem that needs to be addressed. Republicans are making a mistake by continuing to downplay it. But at the same time, the Green New Deal as envisioned by Democrats isn't going to work. It won't solve the problem.
Action is extremely important, but it needs to be the right kind of action. It will only work if the solution is truly bi-partisan. All we have to do is look at the history of Obamacare to know why getting a truly bi-partisan solution important. Thus, I offer a seven step strategy that I believe could create a real bi-partisan solution, one that both sides will like. More importantly, I think it will work!
Step 1: Stop Acting in an Insane Manner
You've probably heard the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. By that definition, both Democrats and Republicans are insane when it comes to climate change: Democrats, because they keep thinking that doomsday scenarios will scare everyone into acting on climate change; Republicans, because 20+ years of closing their eyes and hoping it will go away just hasn't worked. The Republican strategy risks a repeat of Obamacare, but on a way, way bigger problem!
Unfortunately, the "insane" behavior on each side is actually rooted in a false choice. The false choice for the Democrats is, "you either believe in a nightmare scenario of global warming, or you're a climate science denier."
The false choice for the Republicans is, "if we embrace climate science, it means more big taxes and big government, so the alternative is to deny the science; and eventually the issue will go away."
If each side persists in framing the issue according to its respective false choice, neither will ever build the needed consensus for real action (or maybe "inaction" in the Republican case). So what should each side do? Consider step 2.
Step 2: Re-frame the Problem
In order to stop behaving insanely, each side should attempt to re-frame the problem. The funny thing is, I think it could be re-framed in a way that both sides will find acceptable, even likeable. The greenhouse gas problem should be re-framed as, "how could carbon elimination be the next giant American industry, the next big way to make money?"
Re-frame it as a strategy for economic growth. Focus on the economic side, not on preventing doomsday. Yes, it should reduce the climate change risk, but do it because it could be so beneficial for the economy. Instead of trying to drag Republicans kicking and screaming, frame the problem in a way that they'll want to participate.
The funny thing is, there's a historical precedent for this, on a related issue. Back in the 1970's when Congress was debating the Clean Air Act, the utility industry fought legislation to eliminate fly ash. At the time, all they could think was that getting rid of fly ash would simply increase their costs.
Then someone realized that fly ash could be useful in making concrete. Suddenly, the fly ash became a resource that could be monetized. It was and is to this day. The challenge was to reframe the problem (getting rid of fly ash in the atmosphere) as a business opportunity.
Twenty years ago, the economics of carbon were very different, and Republicans had a good point: alternative energy would be more costly than conventional fuels. Trying to solve the greenhouse gas problem through taxes and regulation wouldn't work very well. Today, thanks to better technology and innovation, the economics have totally changed, and alternative energy has the better economics.
Because the economics have changed so much, it really makes sense now to reframe the carbon problem as a business opportunity. The problem of greenhouse gases can be solved without resorting to the kind of big tax/big regulation solutions that Republicans fear, even abhor.
Two approaches come to mind. First, what are the best ways to extract carbon from the atmosphere to create economic growth and, by the way, maybe save the planet? Second, could energy be produced at lower cost by avoiding carbon altogether?
If you can re-frame the "carbon in the atmosphere" problem as a business opportunity,
and the role of the government is to encourage the development of that business opportunity, not impose a solution, Democrats could provide a way to get Republicans to get on board.
That re-framing will definitely help, but there's a crucial second re-framing – step 3. Let's now turn to that.
Step 3: Make a Carbon Dividend the Basis of Your Solution
Economists have almost universally agreed that the first step in trying to get and keep carbon out of the atmosphere is to find a way to increase the cost of carbon emissions. The generally agreed way to do that is to impose a tax on carbon emissions.
A carbon tax, though, is dead on arrival because of Republican opposition. However, there now is an excellent way to get around the problem, and it's actually a Republican idea.
I've written previously ( see "When a Rose Is Not a Rose Is Not a Rose" ). Even better, check out Ted Halstead's TED Talk. Halstead's brilliant solution is to pair a carbon tax with a carbon dividend: all of the money collected through the tax is then re-distributed to the population pro-rata. It is progressive, not regressive, because lower income people will then to benefit more than the wealthier. Republicans should find it acceptable because it isn't really a tax – it's a transfer pa. It should be a cornerstone of any Green New Deal.
Beyond Halstead's solution, the best thing the government could then do would be to help find ever better ways to reduce the cost of alternative energy, making it even easier for people to make money. The best way to do that is to sponsor basic research and new technology.
Step 4: Focus Attention on Basic Research and New Technology
The key to increasing adoption of alternative energy is improved technology, especially improving battery storage and the technology to capture sunlight and wind efficiently. One of the very best things that could come from a Green New Deal is more funding of basic and applied research in alternative energy and carbon extraction. Such research at major universities and research institutes, should result in the creation of new companies that can exploit technology that results from it. It's already happening, it just needs to happen more rapidly, and on a bigger scale. Any Green New Deal should emphasize this.
Such research will also help to lead to step 5.
Step 5: Encourage Experimentation
One of the best things the government might do is to encourage experimentation. Two forms of experimentation come to mind.
The first is what I call the X Prize strategy. The original X Prize was created by entrepreneur Peter Diamandis to encourage the creation of a reusable space rocket. To win the prize, one needed to send the same rocket into space within a two week period, a seemingly impossible task. The impossible became possible, and the original $ 10 million prize has been awarded, as have prizes in numerous other comparable competitions.
The government could encourage people like Diamandis to offer more prize competitions, for example, via tax credits, to create novel carbon capture technologies, or it could even sponsor such competitions itself through the Department of Energy, for example.
Such X Prize style competitions are already underway for carbon capture and elimination. Consider, for example, the efforts of a company in Wyoming to win a $ 7.5 million prize. The good news is, it is no longer necessary to prove that carbon capture or alternative energy are viable economic propositions. That's already been done. Now the only thing necessary is to create an environment that encourages even more creativity and experimentation. Doing this won't require a huge bureaucracy, or lots of rules and regulations, just proper incentives.
The other strategy is to encourage such experimentation at the state and local level. A lot of that already is going on, but much more is possible.
Further encouragement of entrepreneurs to develop novel solutions to carbon capture and alternative energy will keep the USA as the world leader in reduction of greenhouse gases, the position the USA has held for the past 20 years.
Step 6: Help Businesses Make the Transition
Businesses both large and small now understand that alternative energy is a winning business proposition, and more and more new investments are underway. The problem is the speed of eliminating older investments. As an example, it would be great to eliminate all of the old coal burning electricity plants now and replace them with clean energy. The electric utilities would definitely benefit because of the lower operational cost of alternative plants. Who, however, is going to pay the cost of conversion? Part of any Green New Deal should include incentives to retire older plants more quickly. Lots of creative possibilities here. A great thing a Green New Deal could do would be to help utilities develop and implement a cost effective strategy to eliminate all coal fired plants within 10 years. Do it not by holding a gun to their heads, as regulations might do, but by creating the right economic incentives.
What is often forgotten is that even with all of the foot dragging on climate change, the USA has been the world leader in eliminating carbon from the atmosphere over the past 25 years.
Which points to the Achilles Heel of the Green New Deal, and why it could have limited benefit. The problem is that even if the USA is hugely successful in eliminating greenhouse gases, the real problem lies outside the USA, particularly in the developing world. The only way the worldwide greenhouse gas problem can be solved is through step 7, which I turn to now.
Step 7: Export the Solution
Somehow, someway, the rest of the world needs to succeed at carbon elimination. If the USA eliminates 100% of its human-caused greenhouse gases, but the rest of the world stays on the same path, we won't solve the problem. Somehow, any Green New Deal has to export its ideas to the rest of the world.
For example, other countries need to adopt some type of carbon tax, too. They should seriously consider Halstead's "carbon dividend" strategy.
Besides "exporting" the carbon dividend solution, the best thing a Green New Deal could do would be to encourage future construction of clean energy overseas, as well as the replacement of existing facilities such as coal plants. To accomplish that, the government might encourage the following:
- US companies to develop ever better technology that could be exported;
- Tax incentives to encourage Americans to invest in power generation facilities overseas;
- Support for the World Bank to invest in alternative energy projects overseas.
Unfortunately, the level of control the USA has over foreign investment in
carbon elimination is problematic. We cannot impose a solution on the rest of the world. The best thing we could do, however, is invest in things that will continue to drive down the cost of alternative energy, then make that technology available around the world. The more we can show the rest of the world how to make money by eliminating carbon, the more likely we are to succeed.
The greenhouse gas problem needs to be solved. If we think we can do it by imposing taxes and regulation, we're fooling ourselves. However, if we can show the world how to make money by getting carbon and keeping carbon out of the atmosphere, we have the basis for a winning solution. Which choice will we make?
