By Jeremy Carl
Friday, May 31, 2019
Last week BP and Shell both pledged support for the
Climate Leadership Council’s (CLC) proposal for a revenue-neutral “carbon fee
and dividend” plan, under which extractors of carbon-based fuels would be
charged a fee, and all of the money collected would be distributed to the
public as a dividend. While conservatives have a wide variety of views on how,
or even whether, to address climate policy, this initiative is perhaps the most
genuinely bipartisan attempt so far to move forward on a famously contentious
issue.
Under the CLC plan, the fee and dividend provisions would
be combined with the repeal of a number of Obama-era regulatory policies,
including the Clean Power Plan, that try to accomplish similar
emissions-reduction goals, but in a less economically efficient manner. Its
efficiency-focused approach has drawn the support of a significant number of
Republicans, even some who are skeptical of the Left’s broader climate claims.
While I have not been involved with or taken a position
on the CLC plan, I was privileged to spend the last decade directing the Task
Force on Energy Policy at the Hoover Institution, chaired by two of the CLC
plan’s initial co-authors, former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz and
Ambassador Thomas Stephenson. I’ve also written extensively about the empirical
effects of carbon pricing in my own scholarly work.
Shultz and Stephenson joined a distinguished group of GOP
luminaries that includes former secretary of state James Baker, former Treasury
secretary Hank Paulson, former Council of Economic Advisers head Martin
Feldstein, and former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan in creating the
original CLC plan.
But while some critics have referred to the CLC as a
Republican proposal, it was also endorsed by a number of prominent Democrats,
including Larry Summers and Steve Chu, who served as Treasury secretary and
energy secretary, respectively, under President Obama. It was also a rare
proposal that won support from sources as diverse as major environmental NGOs
(such as Conservation International) and industrial titans (such as Ford and
GM). The plan’s core principles were endorsed by 27 Nobel Prize–winning
economists and leading economic policymakers, including every living former
chair of the Federal Reserve and 15 former chairs of the U.S. Council of
Economic Advisers from both parties.
But instead of expressing happiness that some of the
biggest oil producers were willing to accept a major concession to help lower
emissions under a plan with almost unprecedented bipartisan support, many on
the left have complained because the plan also limits climate-change-related
litigation. An article in the liberal blog ThinkProgress
called this provision the oil companies’ “present to themselves.” According to
Daniel Zarillo, an aide to New York mayor Bill de Blasio, it’s a “transparent
attempt by fossil fuel companies to avoid the liability for decades of
deception and denial about the consequence of burning fossil fuels.” Tom Butt,
the mayor of Richmond, Calif., called it a “Trojan Horse proposal that attempts
to prevent cities, counties, states, or others from holding fossil fuel
companies accountable for climate change-related damages they knowingly
caused.”
None of these climate-change lawsuits have succeeded, and
there’s no reason to think they will. They all require novel, if not frivolous,
legal theories. Even far-left European Union courts have thrown out suits of
this type.
Moreover, even if they were successful, most such suits
would do little to limit emissions going forward. The lawsuits are based on the
idea that oil companies intentionally concealed evidence of severe damages from
climate change. Even if these highly contestable claims were true, pursuing
them is simply not the most productive approach to actually moving Americans
toward a politically durable climate-policy solution.
Further, contrary to the implicit claims of Butt,
Zarillo, and others who share their views, there is no significant evidence
that oil and gas companies’ public positions on climate science have driven
substantial changes in oil and gas consumption. Simply put, we use oil because
it allows us to do important things that are very difficult to do without it.
The vast majority of climate activists still fly on airplanes, drive
gasoline-powered cars, and use plastics and other materials made from
petroleum. Pricing carbon could change incentives and promote alternatives,
while retrospective lawsuits do nothing to alter present realities.
Furthermore, even if activists somehow managed to
bankrupt every major oil company without shifting the fundamental incentives in
the energy markets, new investors would simply purchase their assets and
restart the cycle. So why is the Left so invested in these lawsuits?
Beyond financial self-interest, they have a deeper
ideological motivation: using climate change not just as an
environmental-policy issue, but as a way to right all their perceived societal
wrongs. Their primary concerns are not creating good public policy but
promoting a political theology that I have referred to as “The Church of
Environmentalism.”
As Representative Barbara Lee (D., Calif.) said,
“addressing climate change is not just an environmental issue, but also an
imperative to achieve racial and economic justice.” Last year the Sierra Club’s
magazine ran an article endorsing climate-change lawsuits against the oil
companies as the first step in “climate change reparations,” which was only
“the base minimum required for any accounting of a crime as insidious as the
profit-driven alteration of Earth’s atmosphere.” The NRDC has also approvingly called
climate lawsuits “reparations,” as have articles in most of the leading
left-wing publications, such as The New
Republic, The Nation, and Mother Jones. Not to be outdone, the
popular socialist magazine Jacobin
called for trying oil executives for “crimes against humanity.”
This political theology masquerading as public policy is
at work in Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Senator Ed
Markey’s (D., Mass.) Green New Deal. While conservatives poked fun at some
radical environmentalist policies discussed in the draft legislative summary,
the actual legislation has surprisingly little to do with the environment at
all, stating:
It is the duty of the Federal
Government to create a Green New Deal . . . to promote justice and equity by stopping
current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous
peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized
communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers,
women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.
Looking at this broader political context, many on the
right are, quite understandably, skeptical of the Left’s motives in pursuing
their preferred climate policies. The Green New Deal and climate lawsuits are
about punishing the Left’s enemies and funding left-wing social programs, while
giving leftists a false sense of moral superiority. If climate change is the
existential threat to humanity that the Left says it is, they are going to need
to build a bipartisan consensus, not file frivolous lawsuits against energy
companies, to address it.
No comments:
Post a Comment