After decades of contentious and often acrimonious negotiations, the nations of the world have come together with an agreement that places our civilization on a path toward avoiding the worst effects of climate change.

The Paris accord is one of those rare moments when every nation acknowledges that, for the good of all, we must act as one.

“It was a wonderful surprise that after the incredible disappointment of Copenhagen, these 195 countries could come to an agreement more ambitious than anyone imagined,” said Jim Yong Kim, the World Bank president, “This never happens.”

As organizers of the Paris conference will be the first to admit, the commitments made by nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be insufficient to prevent global warming from exceeding the threshold that most scientists consider manageable. For that reason, the agreement calls for nations to revisit commitments every five years to make national goals increasingly ambitious.


Unfortunately, U.S. leadership to marshal global efforts against carbon pollution has been less than inspiring. Forced by a recalcitrant Congress to act on his own, President Obama initiated the Clean Power Plan, which uses Environmental Protection Agency regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at power plants. The EPA rules have met with stiff opposition from congressional Republicans, and both the House and the Senate have passed resolutions of disapproval.

Instead of just saying “no” to the Clean Power Plan, Republicans could offer a market-based alternative that would eliminate the need for EPA regulations. By placing a fee on carbon and returning the revenue to American households, we can incentivize a clean-energy economy without increasing the size of government. Meanwhile, applying border tariffs to imports from nations that lack an equivalent price on carbon will protect American businesses and provide the incentive for all nations to establish a price on carbon — the single biggest step a country can take to meet its climate goals.

A study released last year from Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI), confirms that this solution, known as Carbon Fee and Dividend, would achieve the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while also benefiting the economy. REMI found that after 20 years, CO2 emissions would fall 50 percent and 2.8 million jobs would be added to the economy.

Those who scoff at the notion of Republicans pricing carbon may have missed this news:


• North Dakota Republican Congressman Kevin Cramer recently floated the idea of swapping out EPA climate regulations with a carbon tax.

• Twelve House Republicans have sponsored a resolution acknowledging the threat of climate change and calling upon Congress to work on solutions.

Congressional opponents have said the U.S. should not act on climate change for two principal reasons: It won’t make any difference if the U.S. acts alone, and measures to cut carbon will kill jobs. But neither excuse is valid any longer — the Paris accord ensures that the U.S. will not be acting alone, while the REMI study demonstrates the positive effects a well-designed carbon price would have on the American economy.

The world has taken a great step toward leaving a livable world for future generations. Leadership from the U.S. in the form of a market-based climate solution can ensure that the promises of Paris are kept.


Reynolds is executive director of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.