climate.jpg

Marchers are seen taking part in the People's Climate March of Sept. 21, 2014, on New York City.

(AP file photo/Timothy A. Clary)

By John F. Schivell

In his State of the Union address, President Obama highlighted the growing threat of climate change and reaffirmed his commitment to dealing with the risks of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions. The president stated: "No challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” He then took on the “I’m not a scientist” meme:

“Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But … I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and NOAA, and at our major universities. The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.”

The president made it clear he will not let Congress undo the steps the administration is taking to rein in global warming and lead other nations toward a global climate agreement in Paris later this year:

“I am determined to make sure American leadership drives international action. In Beijing, we made an historic announcement — the United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution, and China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions. And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that, this year, the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.”

The president gave his speech soon after scientists confirmed that 2014 was the hottest year for the Earth since record-keeping began in 1880.

It’s increasingly clear that the state of our union is connected to the state of our climate. Last summer, a bipartisan coalition of our nation’s top political and economic leaders issued the Risky Business report listing the threats that climate change poses for our nation over the next century. Just two of these risks are:

• if we continue on our current path, by 2050 between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide, and $238 billion to $507 billion worth of property below sea level by 2100;

• as extreme heat spreads across the middle of the country by the end of the century, some states in the Southeast, lower Great Plains and Midwest risk up to 70 percent loss in average annual crop yields (corn, soy, cotton and wheat), absent agricultural adaptation.

Much of the valuable coastal property is in New Jersey. And in the Garden State, while we may not see the same dramatic crop loss, more than our gardens will certainly suffer if global warming goes unchecked.

With no solution forthcoming from Congress, President Obama took the initiative two years ago by announcing his Climate Action Plan, which will use Environmental Protection Agency regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

The response from Republicans in Washington has been to attack the president’s climate agenda at every step. As The Hill reported:

[House Speaker] Boehner said the "real question" that should be asked is why "every proposal we see out of the administration with regard to climate change means killing American jobs… .”

Actually, if Congress is looking for a policy to boost employment in America, a carbon fee and dividend plan is one way to make it happen. It also provides a free-market alternative for cutting carbon emissions rather than relying on government regulations.

It works this way: A steadily rising fee is placed on fossil fuels, based on CO2 content, with the revenue returned to households in equal shares. To protect American businesses, border tariffs are placed on imports from nations that lack an equivalent carbon price, motivating them to adopt similar policies.

A 2014 study by Regional Economic Models Inc. looked at the impact of a fee starting at $10 per ton of CO2 that rises $10 per ton each year. In the study, all revenue from the fee is divided equally among households and returned as monthly payments. The aforementioned border tariffs were also factored in. After 20 years, CO2 emissions would be cut in half and 2.8 million jobs would be added to the economy. The job growth comes primarily from the stimulus effect of recycling carbon fee revenue into the pockets of people who are likely to spend the money.

Beyond Capitol Hill, prominent Republicans have been speaking up for revenue-neutral carbon pricing, including former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and former Secretary of State George Shultz, who stated, “It’s not a tax if the government doesn’t keep the money.”

President Obama has laid out the steps he’s willing to take to protect our nation and the world from the ravages of climate change. Rather than erecting obstacles to Obama’s initiatives, Congress should provide an effective alternative that reduces the harmful effects, already being felt, of global warming. The market-based approach of a carbon fee and dividend plan will keep our union in the best state possible.

John F. Schivell, Ph.D., a member of the Princeton chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby, is a retired physicist who worked at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

Follow The Times of Trenton on Twitter @TimesofTrenton. Find The Times of Trenton on Facebook.