Common Good Conservation and the Carbon Tax

"It was like lying in a great solemn cathedral, far vaster and more beautiful than any built by the hand of man." 

Those were the words of President Theodore Roosevelt after visiting Yosemite National Park in 1903. Three years later, he signed the American Antiquities Act, which transferred control of the park to the federal government. 

Between 1901 and 1909, this Republican president established 230 million acres of protected public land.

At the time, most legislators had not yet grown past the libertarian agricultural ideal, despite the Industrial Revolution bringing incredible wealth to a select few and greatly increasing the ability of large corporations to exploit the natural environment for profit. 

61 years later, the first Earth Day was established on Apr. 22, 1970 by Sen. Gaylord Nelson, inspired by a massive oil spill he had witnessed a year before. The point was to have teach-ins on college campuses about environmental protection, in the hope that it would inspire young activists like the anti-war movement had. 

It gained support from all sides of the political aisle. 

Now, Earth Day is the one day of the year when everyone at least pays lip service to protecting the environment. The binary of the two-party system, and the power of special interest associated with it, however, has prevented systematic efforts being taken to address it.

Democrats tend to look at environmentalism from an idealistic lens, while Republicans tend to do so from a pragmatic lens. Splitting Roosevelt’s practical idealist approach in two has rendered them mostly ineffective on their own.

Roosevelt dreamed of an ethic of life consisting of an “individual testing himself constantly against the elements,” according to historian Gary Gerstle, which informed his idealistic approach, but he did not conserve land simply to conserve land. He was an “adamant proponent of utilizing the country’s resources,” according to the National Park Service. 

National forests and other public lands, for example, provide over 7.6 million jobs, and recreation alone adds about $887 billion per year to the national economy and has enabled these forests to continue fulfilling their natural duties of removing pollutants from the air and providing a space for people to simply enjoy nature. 

Conservation also encouraged innovative and efficient new ways to use resources and benefitted existing corporations in the long run by continued access to natural resources.

The system now, however, seems rigged so that the little guy pays whenever the government tries to address corporate exploitation of the environment, and no policy or agreement holds China accountable for producing 27% of world carbon emissions (more than all developed nations combined). 

Which is understandable, since ultimately The United States, as their largest trading partner, would have to either change their consumption patterns or foot part of the bill.

Former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis sought to address this by looking to the example of Democrat presidential candidate Al Gore. Once a climate change denier, Inglis now advocates for a revenue-neutral, border-adjustable carbon tax, which Al Gore has also advocated for.

The “border-adjustable” part means that a fee would be imposed on imports from countries that don’t have a comparable price on carbon pollution to equalize the cost of the carbon tax on American companies. This is also known as a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). 

Inglis founded what became known as republicEN.org at George Mason University back in 2012. 

Of course, taking this middle-ground, practical idealist approach makes it difficult to get past a primary in either major party. 

By reducing the payroll tax, it ensures low-income people do not bear the brunt of the tax, and by adding what is essentially a tariff on foreign-made carbon-intensive products, it ensures other nations are held accountable for their carbon production and encourages them to institute a similar tax in return. The European Union, in fact, recently instituted a very similar policy.

This organic, market-driven approach “will require individuals, businesses, and local communities [to take] responsibility for their contributions,” and also “rejects the notion that environmental stewardship requires either diminished workers’ rights or population control,” as the American Solidarity Party platform suggests.

Environmental policy really ought to be systematic. By simply addressing the carbon production of other nations, the barriers to other policies seem to be broken down

For example, the American Solidarity Party generally opposes fracking, which is a non-environmentally friendly way to drill for oil, especially when it is subsidized by the government. 

Because we have an unnaturally high dependence on oil, however, placing higher regulations on fracking would likely cause companies to buy oil or expand production in foreign countries without the rigorous safety regulations we have. So, the end result is more net carbon production, and less money in the hands of American corporations that can then be taxed. 

However, a revenue-neutral carbon tax with a border adjustment mechanism would put American corporations back on equal footing with these often reckless foreign corporations,  creating less of an incentive to move production overseas, and more incentive to innovate and produce cleaner products.

Much like Teddy Roosevelt, we are the heirs of an industrial revolution that has given us immense power over our surroundings. The technology we have gained in the last few decades has incredible power to be used for the good of the environment, but as with any new technology, it also has immense power to harm it. 

When technology evolves, so must society to guide it, if we want to ensure that the great cathedral spoken of by Roosevelt remains for future generations to enjoy.

Who better to lead that evolution than the party of “common good, on common ground, through common sense” ?