We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode.

To continue reading this article, please exit incognito mode or log in.

Not an Insider? Subscribe now for unlimited access to online articles.

  • An orca off the coast of Washington.
  • Andreina Schoeberlein | Flickr
  • Sustainable Energy

    People will never vote for a carbon tax, so let’s stop asking

    Voters in the state of Washington rejected, once again, what would have been the US’s first carbon tax.

    Late last year, Washington state senator Reuven Carlyle predicted that his state’s voters were ready to say yes to a carbon tax. The Trump administration’s efforts to roll back environmental laws, and the mounting toll of climate change on Washington’s forests, salmon, and orcas, would finally convince them, he told MIT Technology Review.

    The senator was wrong. The latest returns from the state show that voters rejected the I-1631 ballot measure, which would have created the nation’s first such tax and raised more than $1 billion annually within five years, the Seattle Times reported. It marks the second time in a row Washington voters have said no to a carbon tax.

    Which raises an obvious question: If a solidly Democratic state, grappling with rising climate dangers and driven by anti-Trump fervor, still can’t push a carbon tax past the finish line—what are the odds any US state can, much less the country as a whole?

    Or more likely, it answers the question. Short of a massive realignment of political power in Washington, it’s simply not going to happen, at least at the federal level. The Democrats may have won back control of the House on November 6, but Republicans increased their dominance in the Senate, and with it the ability to block any ambitious climate agenda.

    The added problem is that Democrats themselves don’t have an ambitious climate agenda. It simply wasn’t high on the list of legislative priorities for the party as it battled to regain power and provide a check on Trump’s policies, as the Guardian pointed out.

    A growing number of conservatives and even energy companies back a carbon tax, but many of them say it’ll still take years of behind-the-scenes lobbying as well as a tilt in power before such a proposal can have any chance at the national level (see “How the science of persuasion could change the politics of climate change”).

    Back at a state level, asking citizens to vote for more taxes is simply always tough, as political scientists have long stressed. Stephen Ansolabehere, a Harvard professor of government who has conducted ongoing polls of public attitudes on these issues, told me this spring that Americans have long supported outright regulations on greenhouse gases, like emissions caps. Cap-and-trade programs like the ones operating in California and a group of eastern US states, which put the direct onus on businesses rather than consumers, can also poll north of 50%. “But taxes are really unpopular,” Ansolabehere said. “It’s a very hard sell to them.”

    Economists will tell you that a carbon tax would be one of the most effective ways of cleaning up the energy system. It would give businesses a financial incentive to cut emissions, rather than forcing them to meet inflexible regulatory mandates.

    But if politics is the art of the possible, then political leaders and climate advocates should focus on measures that stand the greatest chance of succeeding. A perfect proposal that never becomes law is exactly zero percent effective.

    At a minimum, then, lawmakers should strive to build consensus within the legislature for a carbon tax, rather than hoping for the best at the voting booth. And if they think that adopting a tax will lose them the next election, or undermine support for other climate policies, it may be time to focus efforts on more feasible proposals, like stricter emissions standards, higher tax credits for renewables, and greater research and development funding.

    Costa Samaras, an associate professor of environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, echoed this point on Twitter this morning, noting that progress will have to come from the things that governments are actually capable of enacting. “It’s sub-optimal but so are most sandwiches and I still eat them,” he said.


    Cut off? Read unlimited articles today.

    Become an Insider
    Already an Insider? Log in.
    More from Sustainable Energy

    Can we sustainably provide food, water, and energy to a growing population during a climate crisis?

    Want more award-winning journalism? Subscribe to Insider Plus.
    • Insider Plus {! insider.prices.plus !}*

      {! insider.display.menuOptionsLabel !}

      Everything included in Insider Basic, plus the digital magazine, extensive archive, ad-free web experience, and discounts to partner offerings and MIT Technology Review events.

      See details+

      Print + Digital Magazine (6 bi-monthly issues)

      Unlimited online access including all articles, multimedia, and more

      The Download newsletter with top tech stories delivered daily to your inbox

      Technology Review PDF magazine archive, including articles, images, and covers dating back to 1899

      10% Discount to MIT Technology Review events and MIT Press

      Ad-free website experience

    You've read of three free articles this month. for unlimited online access. You've read of three free articles this month. for unlimited online access. This is your last free article this month. for unlimited online access. You've read all your free articles this month. for unlimited online access. You've read of three free articles this month. for more, or for unlimited online access. for two more free articles, or for unlimited online access.