In Energy Taxes, Tools to Help Tackle Climate Change

By Thomas Cummings

In the New York Times article “In Energy Taxes,Tools to Help Tackle Climate Change” by Eduardo Porter, he talks about possible solutions to the climate change problem. As weather patterns become increasingly inconsistent, many Americans are less hesitant to accept the science behind global warming and therefore open to possible solutions even if it represents a personal sacrifice. As President Obama mentioned in his inauguration address, some changes will have to occur to combat the issue. One such change would be an energy tax says the author of this article. Taxing fuel and energy usage would be effective however the article also mentions that it would affect the lower class even proportionally more than the upper and middle classes. This is an issue that the authors Erik Olin Wright and Joel Rogers also mention in their text American Society: How it Really Works. Closing the wealth gap between social classes is also one of President Obama’s main concerns.

            So we know we must do something about climate change, with growing support from the American Public and the White House. However we also know that a broad fuel tax, although effective, would be expensive and may not have a purely positive impact on society. So what should be done? The authors of American Society offer a different explanation with different solutions.

            Rogers and Wright credit much of the U.S.’s high emissions rates to powerful economic figures in cooperation with the government. As would be the case of large automobile companies, they say that “in general, the most profitable cars to produce are not the most energy efficient” (p. 81). Using their size and economic influence many of these actors obstruct possible solutions because it would mean a profit loss for them. The book also says quite directly that the government support of non-renewable energy sources has kept the industries afloat. 50 percent of government subsidies were directed to oil and natural gas in a period from 1950 to 2006 while only 6 percent to renewable energy. They say that “The nuclear industry would not exist without systematic government sponsorship” and that “The oil industry was directly encouraged by government policy, particularly through a wide range of generous tax breaks” (p. 82). The government has also gotten involved to reduce emissions but the evidence clearly shows that to make a change, Obama’s administration has all the power and tools necessary.

            Some people who defend natural resource energy have adopted the phrase “Let the market decide” with the idea that if it is profitable to develop sustainable energy solutions, the market will make it happen. This short sighted idea however doesn’t take into account government support of their industries. So I say, yes, let the market decide, but that means no government support in either direction or equal subsidies to both renewable and non-renewable options. In this free capitalist market, the best solution will present itself, hopefully before it’s too late.