A carbon fee could make a big difference

That was the warning from the International Energy Agency prior to the opening of the UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa. It's a warning that seems to fall on deaf ears among politicians in America. As a result, U.S. negotiators arrived empty-handed at this year's conference, with no credible plan of action to reduce the threat of climate change.

This isn't great news. Here in Alaska, the changes taking place in our climate are hard to miss.

Already, feedback loops are beginning to hasten the process. Arctic waters, heating up faster than expected, decrease ice cover and reduce reflection of solar radiation to outer space, further increasing heat absorption. Thawing permafrost releases massive amounts of methane and carbon dioxide, adding to the greenhouse gases we release by burning fossil fuels.

These tipping points were predicted by climate scientists years ago. Yet, even as they occur, the coal and oil industries continue to cast doubt on the serious nature of the problem -- just as the tobacco industry cast doubt on the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

If this weren't bad enough, another serious tipping point approaches as the ocean absorbs more, and more CO2 slowly becoming more acidic. As pH drops in the waters of Kachemak Bay, eventually we'll reach the point where crabs cannot easily maintain their exoskeletons. Pterpods, a major food for salmon, will begin to disappear. It isn't clear how quickly this will happen, but it is beyond foolish to hope that without action on our part it will not occur.

Fortunately there is action we can take to avoid the worst-case scenario that looms in our future: Put a fee on carbon.

Economists agree that the best way to change harmful behavior is by increasing the cost. First, a fee on carbon will recognize the true cost of our overuse of this energy source (the many external environmental and social costs that have long gone unaccounted for). Second, this fee will encourage massive investment in renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency, providing jobs to thousands of people, stimulating our moribund economy and putting us back in the competition for dominance of the world's energy sector, a race we are currently ceding to China and Germany. Finally, by rebating most of the fee to American households, the effect of the temporary increase in energy prices will be largely mitigated.

The Save Our Climate Act (H.R. 3242), recently introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., does exactly what is described above. It also uses part of the fee to reduce the deficit, addressing another critical issue that Congress is currently struggling with, albeit with limited success.

Given the real threats we face if CO2 emissions are not controlled -- floods, droughts, food shortages, more severe storms, rising sea levels, decreased ocean productivity -- we need to demand that Congress act. As members of the Senate Oceans Caucus Committee Sens. Murkowski and Begich have important roles to play in addressing ocean acidification. In addition, Sen. Murkowski is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Sen. Begich sits on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Support of the Save Our Climate Act or other legislation to place a fee on carbon is the best way to address what is becoming a grave threat to Alaska's all important marine resources.

If you like to catch, eat or sell seafood or live a subsistence lifestyle, demand that they step up to the plate.

Oh, and by the way, this doesn't mean Alaska won't continue to produce oil and gas for the domestic market. In fact, it is likely that one thing that a fee on carbon will do is encourage more production of natural gas.

Jim Thrall is the Anchorage leader of Citizens Climate Lobby.