As the evidence for the reality of climate change mounts and more and more U.S. governmental agencies argue that our country should take it very seriously, even many GOP congressmen — including Buddy Carter of Georgia and Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina — are saying we need to find a solution that will not damage our economy. Recent public opinion polls also show that the vast majority of Americans now appreciate the reality of climate change.
After years of doing nothing, we now have two proposals on the table for dealing with climate change.
The Green New Deal proposes sweeping changes in all areas of the American economy with massive governmental investments to decarbonize our country in a brief 10 years time while coupling it with progressive ideas of universal health care and guaranteed jobs for all. This certainly addresses the seriousness of the problem, but conservatives have many concerns about government intervention and the massive cost of such an undertaking. There are no specific proposals but rather a series of goals.
Proponents insist nothing short of this will be sufficient and that it is the best investment that we can make with our money.
The other proposal is a bill recently introduced into Congress, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Bill, HR 763. It would place a progressively increasing price on the production of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels to account for their external damage and return all the income to all U.S. citizens in the form of a monthly dividend check. Environmental and economic studies show that it would decrease greenhouse gases by 90 percent by 2050 while at the same time grow the economy and add 2.1 million new American jobs during the first 10 years as well as put more real spendable income into almost 2/3 of Americans’ pocketbooks.
Its advocates claim it would be a free market alternative to the Green New Deal and would not require new additional federal spending.
Which is better, and could the Carbon Dividend bill be a part of a New Green Deal? Certainly these are important questions, and I would ask that our readers study these proposals thoroughly and come to their own conclusions.