Want a Green New Deal? Here’s a Better One.

February 26, 2019

Print This Article Share it With Friends

(Washington Post) We favor a Green New Deal to save the planet. We believe such a plan can be efficient, effective, focused and achievable.

The Green New Deal proposed by congressional Democrats does not meet that test. Its proponents, led by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), are right to call for ambition and bold action. They are right that the entire energy sector must be reshaped.

But the goal is so fundamental that policymakers should focus above all else on quickly and efficiently decarbonizing. They should not muddle this aspiration with other social policy, such as creating a federal jobs guarantee, no matter how desirable that policy might be.

And the goal is so monumental that the country cannot afford to waste dollars in its pursuit. If the market can redirect spending most efficiently, money should not be misallocated on vast new government spending or mandates.

In this series of editorials, we propose our own Green New Deal. It relies both on smart government intervention — and on transforming the relentless power of the market from an obstacle to a centerpiece of the solution.

...

To some, Cove Point is evidence that unhindered economic growth enables environmental stewardship. U.S. natural gas is far less damaging to the environment than coal. It has become so cheap that it is displacing coal in electricity generation, driving down emissions.

To others, Cove Point is an environmental catastrophe. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and burning it releases lots of greenhouse-gas emissions, which cause climate change.

Both arguments are right.

...

Putting the planet first requires accepting both insights. The government should insist on cutting emissions but, to the largest extent possible, decline to dictate how, instead setting incentives and standards that unleash public and private effort.

...

Carbon pricing can do a lot — but not everything

Ask practically any climate scientist whether humanity must cut greenhouse-gas emissions, and you get an emphatic yes. Ask practically any economist how to do that as cheaply as possible, and the answer is equally emphatic: put a price on carbon dioxide emissions with a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program.

Pollution pricing is not untested theory. It is the policy that ended acid rain, ahead of schedule and more cheaply than projected.

...

If it costs more to pollute, there will be less pollution. Taxing all fuels according to their carbon content would send a price signal to every business and every consumer. Habits that pollute would become more costly. Changes that reduced pollution — generating cleaner electricity, buying more efficient appliances, weatherizing homes, investing in smart thermostats — would become more desirable.

A high-enough carbon price would shape millions of choices, small and large, about what to buy, how to invest and how to live that would result in substantial emissions cuts. People would prioritize the easiest changes, minimizing the costs of the energy transition. With a price that steadily rose, market forces would steadily wring carbon dioxide out of the economy — without the government trying to dictate exactly how, wasting money on special-interest boondoggles.

...

Another criticism is that carbon pricing hurts the poor, who would suffer most when prices rose. But the revenue from carbon pricing could be recycled back to Americans in a progressive way, and most people would end up whole or better off.

...

More than 40 governments globally, including several states, have found the political will to embrace carbon pricing programs, which is the only option that would plausibly be bipartisan.

One objection does have merit: Though carbon pricing would spur huge change in infrastructure and power generation, that alone would not be enough.

...

Start with carbon pricing. Then fill in the gaps.

...

For example, economists know that companies that invest in research and development do not get rewarded for the full social value of their work. Others benefit from their innovations without paying. Consequently, firms do not invest in research as much as society should want. On clean energy, that would be true even with a price on carbon emissions. The government should fill this research gap. It would take only a small fraction of the revenue a carbon pricing system would produce to fund a much more ambitious clean-energy research agenda. Basic scientific research and applied research programs such as ARPA-E should be scaled up dramatically.

...

Federal standards for appliances and buildings could slash energy waste where price signals failed to do so. Government loan programs could also help low-income people finance money-saving investments.

The government must also account for the fact that not all greenhouse-gas emissions come from burning the fuels that a carbon pricing program would reach — coal, oil and gas. ... How about emissions from cement, ammonia and steel production? The federal government would have to tailor programs to the agricultural and industrial sectors, which might include judicious use of incentives and mandates.

...

Local governments could help with zoning laws to encourage people to live in denser, more walkable communities. The federal government should also press automakers to steadily improve fuel efficiency.

...

Cutting emissions, at home and abroad

...

If the United States puts a price on greenhouse-gas emissions, other countries would lure U.S. manufacturers with the promise of lax environmental rules. Relocated manufacturers could then export their goods to the United States. The net effect would be no benefit for the planet but fewer U.S. manufacturing jobs.

One response is a kind of tariff on goods entering the country from places with weaker carbon-dioxide policies. That would both eliminate the incentive to offshore manufacturing and encourage countries to strengthen their own rules.

...

Participating in the (Paris) agreement would give the United States a forum — and a basis — to press other nations to reduce emissions. Much like the wildly successful General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which oversaw successive elimination of trade barriers among major economies, the Paris Agreement has established an expectation that the world’s big players will meet regularly and boost their ambition to meet a goal in everyone’s interest, in this case massive greenhouse-gas reduction. To walk away from that process is to reject the lessons of decades of post-World War II international cooperation.

Beyond Paris, the government could share the fruits of U.S. clean-energy research with other nations.

...

Helping other countries to replace archaic cooking stoves that produce noxious fumes would help cut emissions and improve quality of life across the developing world.

...

Good intentions aren't enough. We can't afford bad ideas.

...

The Green New Deal that some Democrats have embraced is case in point. In its most aggressive form, the plan suggests the country could reach net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030, an impossible goal.

...

The plan’s proposal to retrofit all existing buildings is also astonishing in its implied scale, and its promise to invest in known fiascos such as high-speed rail reveal deep insensitivity to the lessons of recent government waste.

At the same time, the Democratic plan would guarantee every American “high-quality health care” and “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security.” These expensive aspirations, no matter how laudable, would do nothing to arrest greenhouse-gas emissions. READ MORE includes VIDEOS

Post Opinions Staff: Here are 11 climate change policies to fight for in 2019 (Washington Post)

Tom Toles: The climate change evidence piles up. So does the denial. (Washington Post)

Eugene Robinson: Yes, the Green New Deal is audacious. But we have no choice but to think big, (Washington Post)

Megan McArdle: Myopic Green New Dealers need to look beyond America for a climate cure (Washington Post)

Jennifer Rubin: The press needs to ask hard questions on the Green New Deal (Washington Post)

“Disappearing” Carbon Tax for Non-Renewable Fuels (Advanced Biofuels USA)

SUNRISE HOLDS DAY OF ACTION: (Politico's Morning Energy)

Excerpts from Politico's Morning Energy: SUNRISE HOLDS DAY OF ACTION: The Sunrise Movement is sponsoring a day of action today across the country, holding office visits, rallies, sit-ins and office takeovers to press both Republicans and Democrats to support the Green New Deal resolution, S. Res. 59 (116). The group said the action will put all senators "on notice" ahead of a vote, which could come as soon as this week. The effort follows a protest in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office Monday that Sunrise said resulted in the arrest of 42 youth activists.

BARRASSO TO TALK CLEAN ENERGY: Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso, who has called the Green New Deal a "raw deal," will keynote a panel discussion on the future of clean energy today before the conservative American Action Forum. Barrasso highlighted an AAF report Monday in a statement that said the Green New Deal would total four times the value of all Fortune 500 companies combined. "Instead, we should promote innovation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. ... We can lower our emissions without crashing our economy," he said.

SEE IT: Republicans are shifting from attacks on climate science to touting their support for innovation to address the problem amid growing calls for climate change action among voters. POLITICO Pro DataPoint's Patterson Clark breaks down that voter polling data here. READ MORE