It was heartening to hear that Brown has agreed to go green by cutting its carbon emissions significantly over the next decade. The authors of the emissions reduction recommendations touted the long-term cost effectiveness of their plan when presenting it to the Undergraduate Council of Students. Isn't that amazing? The relative affordability of using oil and natural gas as fuel sources has always been weighed against the litany of drawbacks to using them, but it seems that finally - finally! - this may no longer be the case. Nevertheless, it can't be expected that ordinary Americans and small businesses will be willing or able to commit the substantial initial investment that switching from fossil fuels will require. Many people, myself included, remain unconvinced that the market can provide the necessary momentum to overcome the inertia without a push.
Though the average gallon of gasoline throughout the United States has cost more than three dollars for quite some time now, when the price of a barrel of oil topped $100 on Jan. 2, a fresh sense of media-fueled hysteria gripped the country. Almost every American can remember the idyllic days of yore when gas cost a dollar per gallon and a Humvee or a gigantic pick-up truck could be driven from Los Angeles to New York for less than $300. Traveling that distance for the same price today would require a car that gets three times the gas mileage, and which would therefore be intrinsically uncool and vaguely European (read: anti-American).
Policy makers have latched onto the idea that minimum standards for fuel efficiency should be established because they penalize the unlovable automotive industry without directly taxing consumers. Compared to the rest of the developed world, U.S. fuel efficiency regulations are woefully lax. But that doesn't stop the industry from complaining fiercely whenever the government increases its standards. Whereas current U.S. mandates require the average gas mileage of each company's fleet to be about 25 miles per gallon, the European Union's minimum gas mileage is more than twice as high. Europe isn't alone in exceeding the United States' environmental standards - China's fuel economy requirements are 48 percent more stringent than America's. This is not proof that China really is the paragon of environmental stewardship, this is proof that the United States is shamefully (if not criminally) behind when it comes to protecting the environment.
We should not limit our efforts to regulating fuel efficiency. It does nothing to discourage consumption of gasoline. Rather, it simply forces consumers to pay for a more efficient method of driving. This might even have the perverse effect of increasing emissions; as the average vehicle becomes more efficient, driving becomes cheaper and more attractive. Extra miles offset added efficiency. We need to create a concrete financial disincentive to burning fossil fuels in order to promote clean energy. In economic terms, the government must step in where the market has failed by putting a price on pollution from coal and oil.
I'll cut to the chase. Yes, I am advocating a carbon tax, which would mean that the gas tax would go up. In the United States, gas taxes vary significantly by state, but nowhere is the combined federal and state tax higher than 51 cents per gallon (in Wisconsin). By contrast, English taxes are slated to increase another 18 cents in April to $5.09 per gallon, (about ten times as heavy as the highest U.S. gax taxes). Americans could certainly afford higher fuel taxes. The Department of Energy estimates that the average American spends $1,300 on gasoline per year, which accounts for 2.7 percent of his annual income. If the federal gas tax were quintupled, it would still amount to less than one fifth of Europe's fuel taxes, and cost the average American less than one percent more of his income.
A carbon tax at this rate would not only discourage much unnecessary burning of fossil fuels, but it would also raise, by some estimates, as much as $350 billion per year. Though this amount would certainly diminish as consumption declined (thus fulfilling the primary goal of the tax), some of the money could be used to alleviate the burden for low-income families. Funds could be used to subsidize electric or hybrid cars for poorer Americans. Most importantly, the government could use the money to fund research on more efficient solar power generation and power transmission technologies, and to finance or subsidize the construction of clean power plants.
In the long run, we must wean our economy off fossil fuels entirely. This means powering our vehicles with electricity primarily generated with solar and nuclear power. America has squandered the last eight years, and it's far past time we acted. Climate change poses a greater threat to the United States than any terrorist ever has and ever will. An increase of just several feet in the sea level would flood hundreds of costal cities throughout the world, including many on the Eastern seaboard and would inundate much of Florida's coast. When the fatal consequences of long-term inaction are added to the shorter term benefits of a carbon tax, such as less dependence on Middle Eastern oil and cleaner air, there seems little justification for a continuation of current policies other than an immoral and unthinking avarice.
Tyler Rosenbaum '11 is the paragon of environmental stewardship.
