Time for U.S. dithering on climate change to end

THE climate change conference in Cancún concluded last weekend, and once again no agreement was reached to reduce the heat-trapping gases that are warming our planet. That's because the United States continues to drag heels when it comes to putting a price on carbon.

At the Cancún meeting, several reports suggested there is greater urgency than ever to stop burning fossil fuels. One report predicts that the way things are going, a billion people would lose their homes by the end of the century. Another predicts that climate change will double food prices by midcentury.

The urgency appears lost on Congress, which adjourns this year without enacting climate and energy legislation.

This is astonishing. Even some energy companies recognize the need for action. On its website, Shell Oil says, "For us the debate on climate change is over ... We are calling on governments to establish policies that will encourage a reduction in CO2 emissions."

Unfortunately, many members of the fossil-fuel industry are not as enlightened. A "No Climate Tax" pledge is being circulated by Americans for Prosperity, an organization funded by oil conglomerate Koch Industries. More than 150 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed the pledge, including three from our state — Doc Hastings, Cathy McMorris-Rodgers and Jaime Herrera (newly elected).

The rest of our delegation supports at least some action. Congressman Jim McDermott sponsored a carbon-tax bill and Sen. Maria Cantwell sponsored a cap-and-dividend bill. While neither bill is ideal, each includes excellent features. The rest of our representatives should join with them to come up with legislation that includes the best features of each.

Currently, the primary objection to taxing carbon-based fuels is the claim that jobs will be lost. However, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that if 20 percent of our power were to be derived from wind energy, 500,000 jobs would be created, dwarfing the 174,000 jobs supported by the coal industry. Similar proportions can be expected for our state if we phase out the coal-powered plant in Chehalis.

While the "No Climate Tax" pledge appears to make climate and energy legislation a non-starter for those who signed it, the wording of the pledge appears to allow support for a revenue-neutral climate and energy bill:

"I, [NAME], pledge to the taxpayers of the state of [STATE NAME] and to the American people that I will oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue."

Citizens' Climate Lobby proposes an act that does not include "a net increase in government revenue": carbon fee and dividend. It works by placing a steadily rising fee on carbon-based fuels paid by producers and importers. All the revenue is distributed to the public as equal dividends for everyone. It won't increase the size of government, and it gives Americans extra money needed to cover rising energy costs associated with the carbon fee.

It also provides a clear price signal for investors who are waiting for some assurance that betting on wind, solar and other forms of clean energy will pay off in the future. That confidence will create a privately funded stimulus for new jobs.

It's a solution that both political parties should be able to agree upon. Based on what the scientific reports presented in Cancún are telling us — essentially, objects in the mirror are closer than they appear — we can't afford to wait another two years to address climate change.