OPINION: Alaskans are already paying for carbon emissions

Rep. George Rauscher recently criticized a proposed federal study underlying a border-adjustment carbon tax by emphasizing increasing household costs and the specter of economic harm in Alaska (”Border adjustment tax will raise Alaska energy prices, hurt consumers,” July 3). However, by isolating such a tariff from the larger economic forces, he misrepresented the true risks to our state and national economy.

Paying a little more today to save a lot of money tomorrow is a good bet. A border-adjustment tax (an import tariff on carbon-intensive goods) is a sensible component of a fiscal policy response to the accelerating costs of climate change. In Alaska, we already know that fixing roads damaged by permafrost sinkholes or closed by landslides is expensive, and replacing ice roads would be much more so. Alaskans are now paying economically, culturally and in poorer nutrition for missing salmon runs and crumbling underground food storage. The Alaska seafood industry generates about $13 billion per year, much of it vulnerable to ocean acidification and a warmer North Pacific. Dozens of communities risk losing homes, airstrip access, and sanitation systems due to coastal erosion and fall storms. Across the country, home insurance companies are raising rates or not taking new customers in regions with heightened “unnatural” disaster risks (wildfires in California, hurricanes in Texas). By 2050, climate change impacts are estimated to shrink the U.S. economy by as much as 7%.

To reduce the scale of future damage, 64 countries have some form of a carbon tax. A tax on carbon dioxide puts some of the cost of emissions into the cost of the product. When instituted as a fee and dividend, a carbon tax is revenue-neutral: it does not meaningfully grow the scope of government but returns revenues to consumers. Although Rauscher interprets such a revenue dispersal as a “handout”, many view a carbon fee and dividend as the more conservative, free-market solution to climate change. A carbon tax is supported by several traditional energy companies because it offers more fiscal stability and innovative space than regulations. A carbon fee and dividend does not require public investment in energy efficiency; it properly incentivizes private investment.

Some of the 64 (and counting) countries with a carbon tax in place are looking at their imports, from the U.S. and less-energy-efficient manufacturers, and planning a border-adjustment tax. The EU is developing legislation that will phase in carbon tariffs on some U.S. products in 2026. By not studying the carbon dioxide emitted in production by our trading partners, we will be caught unprepared for this market shift and lack the data to respond effectively.

I thank Rauscher for his service on the Alaska Energy Security Task Force. As he points out, the global oil market’s volatility harms Alaskans facing high energy costs. Therefore, I urge the task force to tackle statewide energy security strategically, leveraging Alaska’s potential as a low-carbon producer and local clean power innovator by utilizing our renewable energy resources.

Lia Slemons, Ph.D., studied oceanography at the University of Washington with a focus on the effects of climate change. She lives in Anchorage.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.