Emission ControlBYMatt SimonA Better
Build
BY Liz Stinson
$50-per-ton tax on carbon and increased the tax
5 percent per year, emissions would drop 63 per-
cent by 2050. If every country adopted a carbon
tax with a similar effect, the world might be able
to slash its emissions in half by the middle of this
century.
The idea that has lately taken off among cer-
tain conservatives is one that cuts the sourness
of a carbon tax with some sweeteners. US repre-
sentative Francis Rooney, a Florida Republican,
has cosponsored legislation that would impose
a fee on metric tons of carbon emitted and then
distribute the spoils back to US residents as a
monthly “carbon dividend.” (You could think of
it as a form of basic income, the concept that
helped make Andrew Yang one of the biggest
gang leaders in America over the past year.) In
one proposal, crafted by the bipartisan Climate
Leadership Council, a family of four might expect
to get $2,000 back in the first year. Plans put
forward by Rooney and the Climate Leadership
Council also propose to eliminate or suspend
federal regulations on carbon emissions—which
perhaps helps explain why the CLC has the sup-
port of oil giants, car manufacturers, and utility
companies.
Ultimately, a carbon tax needs to be global to
reach its full potential. After all, heavy-emitting
industries can flee to nations that have no car-
bon pricing. Placing a carbon tariff on goods
imported from such places can incentivize dirt-
ier countries to clean up their acts. The European
Union is now considering such a measure. Reve-
nue from that kind of tariff could again help fund
a dividend, to shield people from rising costs.
All good ideas, but none too likely to pass
during the current US administration, which has
pushed tax cuts and denied the severity of cli-
mate change. Campaigns to implement one in
Washington state have failed twice. There are
other options. Mark Jaccard, an economist who
helped design British Columbia’s carbon tax,
argues that a country can tighten regulations
instead, choosing to phase out coal plants, for
example, or implement a low-carbon fuel stan-
dard. Regulations “may be way better politically,
like way better, and only slightly less efficient
economically,” Jaccard says. The key to saving
the world? It’s all politics.↙
FOR DECADES, THE IDEA OF A CARBON
tax has been stuck in the waiting room of Amer-
ican politics: Familiar to everyone who comes
and goes, it has sat there long enough to grow
cobwebs from its ears. For the vast majority
of Republicans, the idea is anathema, and for
Democrats it’s one among several policies that
compete for the love of lawmakers and climate
wonks.
But politics, like the climate, is volatile these
days. In the past couple of years, some Repub-
licans have broken ranks with their party to
support a tax on carbon emissions—perhaps
because the climate is becoming more salient
with voters, perhaps as a foil to the more radi-
cal Green New Deal, or perhaps to, you know, do
something to stop global warming. Given that
tiny bump in bipartisan momentum, it’s worth
revisiting the case for a carbon tax.
If you want to discourage bad behaviors,
economists say, make them expensive. The strat-
egy works for cigarettes, soda, gasoline. And it
works for carbon emissions too. Adding a charge
to the carbon content of fossil fuels is widely
seen as one of the more powerful tools a country
can use to shrink its emissions.
It works like this: A government charges a fee
per ton of greenhouse gases emitted. The fee is
small at first, rising gradually to give companies a
chance to adapt. Individual households don’t get
taxed directly, but they could take a hit when the
big emitters raise their rates in response.
“The beauty of a carbon tax is that everything
we want consumers to do gets incentivized to be
done,” says MIT economist Christopher Knittel.
Residents pay more attention to their thermo-
stats. Utilities might invest more in solar or wind
farms. Manufacturers could start offering more
energy-saving products, such as more efficient
cars and heating and air-conditioning systems.
Several countries have implemented some
form of carbon pricing—just not the most-
offending nations. After Sweden instituted a
tax in 1991, its transportation emissions fell an
average of 6 percent a year, according to one
study. (A separate tax on transport fuels shrank
the country’s carbon footprint further.) In Brit-
ish Columbia, a carbon tax reduced emissions
by up to 15 percent. Last year, after the prov-
ince’s experiment proved successful, Canada
expanded carbon pricing nationwide. Research-
ers at MIT calculated that if the US placed a↙
CONCRETE DOMINATES CONSTRUCTION,
BUT SOME ECO-FRIENDLY
MATERIALS ARE TRYING TO CHIP
AWAY AT THE EDGES.
_
CROSS-LAMINATED TIMBER
Made from lumber boards that are glued
and layered on top of each other crosswise,
CLT comes in giant panels that can replace
concrete and steel as the backbone of
a building. When produced with
sustainable forestry practices, CLT is a
green alternative. The material was used
to construct what is currently the world’s
tallest timber building: Norway’s 18-story
Mjøstårnet tower.
_
HEMP
Combining the cannabis strain’s woody
interior pulp with lime and water produces
“hempcrete,” a drywall-like material that’s
light and robust and has a low carbon
output. Hempcrete isn’t load-bearing,
so it won’t replace concrete and steel,
but it’s already been used in residential
projects for walls and insulation.
_
MYCELIUM
When the threadlike fibers of mushroom
root extensions are mixed with byproducts
like corn husks, sawdust, and rice straw,
it creates a foamlike material that can be
cast into panels, bricks, and tiles. Often
used to replace Styrofoam packaging,
mycelium materials have also been used to
make acoustic panels and insulation.
One architecture firm in Cleveland is
experimenting with combining mycelium
with wood, insulation, and other
construction waste to create biodegrad-
able bricks.
MATT SIMON (@mrMattSimon) is a senior
writer at wired._ A survey suggests that two-thirds of Americans support a
carbon tax if the revenue is used for environmental restoration.A tax to slow the release of carbon gains momentum.