The Daily Green

Would you pay $175 to save the climate?

smoke stack
(Photo: Jaap Hart / iStockPhoto)

The questions about global warming keep evolving. In the Bush years, we were stuck on "Is it real?" (yes). The Obama administration has moved the question to "What are we going to do about it?" which has all but been answered (a cap-and-trade regulation on major polluters).

So recently, the question has become: "How much will it cost?"

This debate has sprung largely from a Republican misreading (why not be generous?) of an MIT study that led pundits and politicians to cry about the perils of a new "energy tax" that might cost American households $3,100 every year. (Though that claim has been thoroughly debunked, I seem to hear it every other Saturday in the Republican response to President Obama's weekly address.)

The author of the MIT study puts the cost at $800, while the conservative Heritage Foundation estimated the annual cost at $1,500 and the Environmental Protection Agency estimated the cost at just $140 or lower.

Hence, the debate.

Politics being what it is, don't expect the debate to stop just because a nonpartisan, highly trusted organization has released the definitive study. But it has.

The Congressional Budget Office has examined the costs -- and rebates -- being engineered into the Congressional climate solution. The result: The average household will pay about $175 a year. The richest among us will pay more, about $245, and the poorest will get rebates enough to make $40 in the bargain.

As the Washington Post puts it: "The costs would result from higher prices for carbon-based fuels, offset by a complex series of tax breaks and free allowances, new technologies and behavioral changes, and impacts on corporations and their profits."

Soon enough the question being asked should change again: "Are you willing to pay $175 to preserve the climate?"

It might mean you pay a little more for a car or a refrigerator, for instance -- as a new report makes plain the recognition that carbon dioxide and other well-known greenhouse gases aren't the only problem. Refrigerants known as HFCs -- the hydrofluorocarbons that replaced the CFCs we banned to save the ozone layer -- are a growing concern.

It might mean your electricity bill is higher (which may or may not prompt you to conserve more energy to keep your monthly costs flat). It might mean that consumer goods in general cost a little more, as the cost of doing business increases. If you work in some industries, it might mean a threat to your job; if you work in others, it might mean a hiring bonanza.

So the question is: Is that level of sacrifice worth it in order to preserve a climate that has supported life as we know it?

Already, the rate of warming is speeding up beyond earlier predictions (by 2100, it will be twice as warm, globally, as previously predicted, according to one well-regarded analysis). Already, the Arctic is melting, threatening the lives of wildlife like polar bears and walruses. Already, glaciers are melting.

These are remote, leading edge indicators of the changes that are in store in real time, and in moderate latitudes. Drought, floods, strong storms, heat waves, new diseases (both for humans, and for animals and crops), increased wildfire intensity and frequency, and a host of other ills are already showing up in the U.S. and will only grow more intense with time.

So is it worth $175 a year to avert the worst?

 

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

Email IM Bookmark del.icio.us Digg

You do not appear to have Yahoo! Messenger installed. Click here to download and install it.

Email this article

There is a problem with one or more email addresses entered

Enter email addresses, separated by commas.

There is a problem with the email address entered

Email addresses will only be used to email this information on your behalf and will not be used for any marketing purposes.

Alerts

Get an alert for updates:
  • from this author
  • on Science
  • on News
  • on Government
  • on Pollution
  • on Economics

View All Green Alerts »

comments from our community

Showing 1 - 12 of 12 comments

Post Comment
  • Posted by Charlie W Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:00pm PDT
    The Ethiopians must have an inside track on what this tax is really about. Check out Yahoo Green News. They already have their hand out for some free American cash. Remember they were very intent on watching our presidential election results. Were they promised something at our expense? Read the article, "Rich should compensate Africa for global warming: Ethiopian PM", It's an eye opener!!!!!
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by justanotherday Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:28pm PDT
    Charlie is a bit off the mark - the Ethiopian PM simply wants industrialized countries to pay our fair share for the massive amounts of damage we create to the environment, which poor countries in Africa suffer from more than we do. And the $175/yr for Americans is nothing considering how we've screwed up the climate with our cars, factories, meat-eating, pesticide use, etc etc.
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by Trevor Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:59pm PDT
    $175 is the direct increase from your electric bill. It is ACTUALLY estimated that the indirect cost is $3000 a year due to how this will effect the cost of manufacturing, food, gasoline, trade, and more. Tell the damn truth, media. It's not just as simple as the most direct cost!
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by Trevor Fri Jun 26, 2009 8:21pm PDT
    "Is it real Yes" Is it mostly man made I think not It's already going on in the US so what ask Greenland what they think "Keep Greenland Green" Any one who thinks it will only cost $175 dollars wrote this artical and thinks national health care and ilegal aliens are green even though both dont have the green to work
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by ROBERT FG Fri Jun 26, 2009 9:08pm PDT
    Does anybody really trust the present administration? Every chance they get they raise our taxes or cost to live. Also all of the "so good" legislation is loaded with pork and spending is out of sight. This is the second large tax bill passed without the representatives having a chance to read what is in the legislation before passing these pork laden bills. Our only hope is to vote all incumbents out of office as they have lost touch with their constituents and the common taxpayer.
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by cindii@att.net Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:19pm PDT
    Sad for America where the *hell* have you been the past 8 years??! The world as we "knew" it changed a long time ago so don't be blaming this current administration. The country was taken over by a bunch of self righeous, pompus, stingy, evil, lying, currupt republicans with their war mongering mentality resulting in our men and women in the military to be killed needlessly for a war that should have never been! From the looks of things, we may never be able leave completely! Where is the outrage over THaT??!!
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by tjw111 Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:19am PDT
    If we have nuclear war.Then we will have all the climate change you can handle.
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by sirjames8 Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:32am PDT
    justanotherday said; Charlie is a bit off the mark - the Ethiopian PM simply wants industrialized countries to pay our fair share for the massive amounts of damage we create to the environment, which poor countries in Africa suffer from more than we do. And the $175/yr for Americans is nothing considering how we've screwed up the climate with our cars, factories, meat-eating, pesticide use, etc etc. I say;that by that logic...... Then China, which pollutes more than we do should be paying far more! Not to mention that If they won't pay,(and they won't) then, to be fair, we should institute a special pollution tax (to be paid for them) on items based on their prospective average "pollution index". This would be based not only on the average carbon footprint in use, but also on the carbon (and other pollutants), footprint of production.This, making things from countries with lax pollution laws such as China, more expensive, would allow the FAR greener American manufacturers to compete on a more level playing field. This would bring some manufacturing jobs back home. Good for the environment, good for the economy, good for America.
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by sirjames8 Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:32am PDT
    Anyone notice that The Libs never mention that the "Little Ice Age" Just ended between 106 and 135 years ago? The various end dates used vary from 1874 to 1903. That would mean that we probably are still in the warming period between Ice ages.
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by darthfrobi3@sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:53am PDT
    I didn't read anyone elses comment all I have to say is GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL! BUT not like you probablly think the SUN is getting bigger and we are getting closer to it. One day it will implode or explode and by that time the earth will probablly have already gone into it. It ain't greenhouse gasses!
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by Robert Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:24am PDT
    Climate change is on a normal cycle that we have no control over. Man's impact is minimal. The fools who just passed this bill must believe that cave men with their factories and SUV's caused glaciers to recede carving out the Great Lakes in the U.S.
    Report Abuse
  • Posted by smuone Sun Jun 28, 2009 9:24am PDT
    The artical is simply dishonest. It claims that paying $175 a year (per American and more for the entire family) will "avert the worst". In fact, the writer doesn't really know that these changes will have any appreciable effect on future climatology. He tries to present certainty, when he has none.
    Report Abuse

Leave a Comment:

You must first sign in.

Green Picks Playlist