Pay to Play On Climate Change

Sunday night on "60 Minutes," former Vice President Al Gore said he is launching a three-year, $300 million campaign aimed at mobilizing Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone from Al Gore to Environmental Defense has been very effective in raising the alarm about global climate change and framing a convenient villain (usually some variation of "big American business"). However, they tend to get all fuzzy when it comes to:

The result is an impression by the general public that, while we do face a big problem, the solutions should be free for most people ("Hey, just make the car companies build that electric car!"). That's nonsense--every possible means of radically reducing our carbon emissions will impose high costs and lifestyle changes on the public. You may not like a gas tax--but cap-and-trade could impose even greater increases than a tax would.

 

Environmental groups have been scared to talk about costs and sacrifices because they think it will deter the public from addressing the challenges of climate change--and with good reason. A recent National Center for Public Policy Research poll found that--not surprisingly--Americans are not too interested in paying additional gasoline taxes in order to help address the challenges of climate change. Nor would they likely be thrilled with a $6 trillion price tag to bring down greenhouse gas emissions only marginally.

 

In fact, these environmental groups like to shout down the U.S. Chamber and other groups who talk about costs--accusing us of being reactionary anti-environmentalists who want the planet to cook. In fact, that is precisely what Environmental Defense alleged three months ago in an inflammatory letter addressed to the U.S. Chamber's entire board, denouncing our position on climate change. These groups think that they can postpone the discussion of costs until it's too late for anyone to do anything about it, at which time they will again lay the blame for cost increases and personal sacrifices on business!

 

They also tend to paint an unrealistically rosy scenario on how quickly we can achieve these reductions. Many of the technologies necessary to capture carbon and make coal cleaner burning are not yet commercially viable and won't be for some time. And when they are available, they must be adopted globally or we will never achieve the levels of reduction that will make a real impact.

 

Not having an honest, complete discussion is a bad strategy if you really want to address global climate change over the long term. There is ample evidence that surprising the public rarely makes for good politics. Any costs imposed can quickly be un-imposed once the public starts to howl. The only truly smart play regarding the environment is being honest about costs and choices--and enrolling the public in the discussion. The U.S. Chamber is at the forefront of this truly pro-environment strategy, and we are going to keep at it no matter what bill of goods others try to sell to the public. Doing so will help achieve what we all want--a cleaner environment and a prosperous economy.