Editor:

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has delayed implementation of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, Colorado is moving forward. One way in which our state might comply — placing a tax on carbon dioxide emissions — is important, as Phil Nelson noted in his recent letter to the editor. Carbon pricing is a widely endorsed policy tool that controls greenhouse gas emissions and will help stabilize the climate. Close to 40 nations, and parts of nations, have some form of carbon pricing. This includes Alberta, an oil-and-gas producing Canadian province.

Evidence supports the claim that carbon pricing does not harm an economy — specifically, a revenue-neutral carbon tax, an approach in which revenues collected are “returned” to the public. They could be used to support cuts in other taxes such as payroll or corporate income taxes. Or, they could be returned to U.S. households as equal monthly dividends. Each approach is associated with differing benefits for low, middle and high-income groups.

One large-scale study estimated the economic well-being of the United States with and without a steadily rising carbon tax (or fee) and dividend. The study projected the poor and most of the middle class would be better off economically with such a tax than without. After 10 years, national employment and GDP were estimated to be slightly larger with than without a carbon tax and dividend, because the most vulnerable would have funds to pay the increased costs of carbon-intensive goods and funds left over to spend in the economy. Incentives would be created for use of lower carbon-intensive goods and for expansion of clean energy. After 10 years, CO2 emissions were estimated to decline by a third below 1990 levels.

In light of Colorado’s vulnerabilities to climate change and the associated costs, it is critical the Colorado Legislature, rather than reject carbon pricing out of hand, study its potential with an eye toward its endorsement as national policy.

Kathleen Wells

Denver