Alex Mills
By Alex Mills
At the Paris Climate Conference, President Barack Obama committed the United States to modify its entire economy in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. He has even said that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, and he pledged $500 million to help other countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – are the target of those attending the conference. A global carbon tax seems to be the most popular weapon that countries would use. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund both endorsed a carbon tax as a method of lowering emissions.
These supporters assume that a carbon tax would raise the cost of fossil fuels to a level that they would become too expensive when competing with “cleaner” energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear.
Also, a carbon tax would go directly to the government to be used to offset the cost of implementing green-energy technology.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Dec. 1 that some energy corporations – Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Total SA and BP PLC – have announced their support for a carbon tax. It is worth noting that all three companies are based in Europe (Shell in Netherlands, Total in France and BP in Great Britain). All three companies are fully integrated, and would be able to add a carbon tax at the retail level similar to state and federal taxes on gasoline. That way, the tax would be passed along to consumers.
Even though these companies are still very involved in the development of oil and natural gas resources, they have a comprehensive energy portfolio. All of them are involved in the development of alternative energy sources around the world. Some even believe that a carbon tax would not hurt them at all.
Even though a majority of the attendees at the conference are convinced that global warming is all bad, there are others who believe that some good may come from increases in carbon dioxide, which the Environmental Protection Agency has labeled a pollutant. For example, carbon dioxide causes crops and plants to grow greener and faster.
Also, non-believers point out that the earth is only 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 35 years ago.
The biggest divide among the countries attending the conference comes when the subject of money comes up. Developing countries want the richest nations that are the largest polluters to pay into the Green Climate Fund. These payments would be divided among the developing countries so they can finance emission reduction projects.
How much? How about $100 billion a year from 2020 onward. Germany, Norway and U.K. have committed to $1 billion a year until 2020. Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland also agreed to pay $500 million for projects in poorer countries via the World Bank.
President Obama said at the conference the U.S. is committed to funding this program. He proposed $500 million in his 2016 budget. A year ago, he pledged $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund.
While the President was in Paris, Congress voted to block EPA carbon rules for power plants Tuesday, dealing a symbolic blow to President Barack Obama’s climate change agenda.
The House adopted two Senate-passed resolutions blocking EPA rules that apply to new and existing power plants, but the White House has already promised that Obama will veto them.
Both resolutions, drafted under the rarely used Congressional Review Act, passed with mostly Republican support.
It was the latest in a series of GOP efforts to force Obama to submit a potential Paris agreement for Congressional approval, a move the administration has resisted because of the likelihood it would be blocked.
Alex Mills is President of the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers. The opinions expressed are solely of the author.
Another excuse to collect taxes…
Exactly