A common sense solution to lower CO2 - By KRISTEN WALSER

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------------

More than 1,500 Montanans in 13 communities around the state (That is, 0.15% of the population.) showed their support for climate solutions this past April 26. From Red Lodge to Whitefish, Bozeman to Lame Deer, faith-based groups, volunteer groups and businesses signed on as co-sponsors with the same goal: Let’s reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that cause global warming, through individual and policy solutions. (A typical Leftist rhetorical technique: Attempting to make support for the cause seem broad-based and prevalent.)

Unfortunately, we have to act fast. ("We," meaning government. And of course it's always a crisis. Which it has been for 30 years. Al Gore famously warned we have 10 years left to act. Paul Erlich of "Population Bomb" fame made many hysterical predictions, none which have come true. Hansen's "hockey stick." Polar bear ice.

The climate change alarmists have gotten increasingly strident over the years, probably because the number of people who still believe them, after their many failed predictions, is falling. Now they're given to hyperbole and hysterics, which turns people off even more.)

The global scientific consensus is that we need a 40-70 percent reduction of fossil fuel emissions by 2050, and nearly 100 percent by the turn of the century. (Do the math. If you have tne apples and reduce them by 100 percent, how many apples do you have left? If you answered zero, go to the head of the class. Ms. Walser is calling for carbon emissions to be reduced to zero!) With no action, (That is, without even more big-government programs.) emissions by mid-century will be double those of the last 34 years, with consequences no one can avoid.

The good news is, the recommended reduction is possible with existing technologies. Germany is on track to meet the bottom range of that goal, 40-45 percent renewables by 2050, with less solar potential than the U.S.

The Solutions Project from Stanford University has mapped a 100 percent renewable energy profile for Montana of about 30 percent wind, solar, and hydro, and 10 percent geothermal, all using existing technology, by 2050. It is possible. (Notice that nothing in her list allows for vehicle usage?)

So what’s holding us back? (Well, probably us backward, narrow-minded destroyers of the planet, I'd guess.)  Investors and policy makers base decisions using short-term economic equations.

Fossil fuels have an unfair advantage (It's not fair! Can you imagine that fossil fuels themselves are taking advantage of solar power? They are so evil!) in these equations because they ("They." Fossil fuels are "they.") don’t have to account for the damage the carbon causes when it’s burned. They ("They.") don’t have to pay when extreme weather ruins your home, your business, your crops.

If these costs, which economists call the social cost of carbon, are rolled into the cost of mining fossil fuels, it would tip the profitability scale towards alternatives. (She's trying to sound like a capitalist but just can't pull it off. She seems to think the government should coerce us into making the "right" choices, and that this coercion is good because it's profitable. Huh?)

In British Columbia they have done just that.

It’s called a carbon pollution fee. (That would be a tax.) They collect a fee (A tax.) on fossil fuels at the site of extraction, based on tons of CO2 emissions. Fossil fuels that emit more carbon dioxide would be taxed (There, I knew she could say it.) more. Renewable sources would not be taxed. (Because there is no impact on the environment for manufacturing, erecting, or operating renewable resources, of course.)

Automatically the profitability equation changes, with investors deciding which alternatives to back, creating jobs and paying taxes just like the fossil fuel companies do now, while the dirtiest fuels would be left in the ground. (Once again she appeals to capitalism, but her conclusions rest on coercive government intervention. Sorry, that's not capitalism.)

It’s crucial to make sure workers, businesses, and households don’t get hurt in the transition.

That’s why Citizens Climate Lobby, a national, non-partisan organization of volunteers, advocates slowly increasing the price on carbon over 10 years, and directing 100 percent of the fees (Um, taxes.) collected back to households. (Does anyone really believe that government will collect an escalating amount of taxes from fossil fuel companies and turn 100 percent of it over to all of us? And even if they did, do you suppose a lot of people would spend that money on polluting flights to vacation destinations, carbon-spewing new cars, and T.V.s and other goods that waste precious resources?) As the prices go up, so would the rebate checks.

This makes it predictable for business, too. In fact, companies like Exxon and our own Northwestern Energy are banking on this new equation. In recent years, Exxon has transformed into the largest producer of natural gas in the U.S. because of its lower carbon content, and Northwestern aims to buy 11 Montana hydroelectric plants.

Of course the most important reason to adopt a carbon pollution fee is, it works! British Columbia passed a carbon pollution tax in 2008 and lowered its emissions by 20 percent per capita in 5 years, while maintaining a higher GDP than the rest of Canada. (This is typical for the Left as well. Ms. Walser compares British Columbia to the rest of Canada as if this is meaningful. We don't know what the GDP of Canada or British Columbia is, what factors are being measured, or what the numbers have historically been. It is specious to attribute economic performance to a single factor, especially a tax, and declare that the tax improved the economy. By that rationale, even more taxes ought to really get the economy booming, right?)

More and more politicians recognize the risks of inaction. In this free-market solution, the revenue doesn’t go to the government to choose whom to subsidize. (Does she really believe it's a free-market solution to have government impose taxes on certain industries in order to move individual choices to the non-taxed industries? This apparently is what it is like in the land of pink unicorns and rainbows.)

As George Schultz, the former Treasury Secretary for President Reagan, said last year, “It’s not a tax if it doesn’t go to the government.” (I googled this statement and received no hits. I did find this opinion piece advocating a carbon tax, however. Schultz makes the same erroneous case for it that Ms. Walser does. And by the way, there's nothing conservative about George Schultz, Reagan aside. 

This is also a common Leftist tactic, to suddenly become a fan of a supposed conservative when that conservative can be used to further the Leftist agenda. You can be sure that if Schultz came out tomorrow with a statement against gay marriage, today's support would be quickly forgotten.) This gives the proposal the miracle of possible bipartisan support and passage Once . people know about this commonsense solution, (Interestingly, Ms. Walser was given a previous platform by the Chronicle to write about her oppostion to fossil fuels. She reuses a favorite rhetorical device found in that previous editorial. The "common sense" solution is more taxes and more government, the default position of the Left on nearly everything.) they embrace it, and so will Rep. Daines, and Sens. Tester and Walsh, if enough of us ask them.

Kristen Walser represents the Bozeman chapter of the national Citizens Climate Lobby.