Climate change is real, and something must be done about it.

Everyone and their mother have their own opinion on what to do.

However, most of the proposed changes — in particular, Initiative 732, the proposed carbon tax — have good intentions, but are terrible in practice.

No on I-732, the opposition group sponsored by the Association of Washington Business, provided an exclusive statement to The Daily Evergreen on the proposed initiative.

“Initiative 732 is all cost and no benefit,” a spokesman from No on I-732 said. “Washington is already leading the way in carbon reduction, the last thing we need is a regressive tax that doesn’t move the ball forward.”

What even is a carbon tax, anyways?

A carbon tax is effectively a fee levied on carbon emissions, typically per quantity of carbon produced.

Proponents argue that the fee imposes on producers a financial cost for destruction of the environment.

This can be appealing, as pollution is a cost on society that cannot be effectively handled via a market alone.

Opponents argue that the tax will impede economic activity, and that the tax is regressive, meaning that it hurts lower income people more than it does higher income people.

There is some sense to this, as energy is something we all have to pay for, and energy is effectively what’s being taxed here.

Will this tax really be effective in reducing carbon pollution?

A report by Food and Water Watch analyzed the carbon tax introduced into law in British Columbia, Canada and found less than satisfying results.

Pro-carbon tax advocates widely trumpeted British Columbia’s record of reducing carbon output by just about 4.9 percent.

However, non-taxed carbon producers also reduced their carbon footprint by about 3 percent, meaning that the carbon tax could at most take credit for a measly 1.9 percent reduction in total carbon emissions.

Moreover, from 2011 to 2014, total carbon production by taxed producers actually increased by over five percent, whereas non-taxed producers of carbon reduced their footprint by 2.5 percent.

Canada’s government projects that British Columbia’s greenhouse gas production will increase over the coming years, despite this supposedly miraculous tax.

So it isn’t really that effective after all. What if it passes anyway? What’s it going to cost?

The Seattle Times reports that I-732 will not be revenue neutral as supporters suggest, but actually create a nearly $800 million budget shortfall.

Washington State is one of many states which requires a balanced budget — meaning this must be paid by even more taxes or cuts in social services and education.

“It would increase the cost of gas by $.25 a gallon (and) raise household energy bills by $448 a year,” the No on I-732 spokesman explained.

Moreover, an estimated 21,000 jobs will be lost, according to a report from the Washington Department of Commerce.

Higher prices and fewer jobs aren’t exactly what we should be shooting for in effective public policy.

So what are we supposed to do about climate change?

Here’s an example of a similar problem: automobile accidents. They are an unintended cost of us all driving cars, just as carbon pollution is an unintended cost of us all using energy.

Certainly, we could all stop driving, and there would not be any automobile accidents. But that would have a massive cost to society.

When we ask ourselves how much carbon should be produced, it is similar to asking how many car accidents we should have in a year.

Both these questions seem quite silly at first. Of course we should target having no automobile accidents or no pollution.

What if the only way for a trucking company to minimize accidents would be to drive three miles per hour and to only move cargo between 1-4 a.m., when there are no other cars on the road?

Perhaps now you see the problem we are confronted with.

Is there anything we can do?

Yes. But you won’t like it.

20th century economist Murray Rothbard wrote in his essay “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution” about the change in property rights during the 19th century.

When America was founded, if your neighbor polluted your property, you could seek just recompense for this trespass committed against you.

As America approached the industrial revolution, however, courts began to manipulate the judicial system, making it so businesses that polluted could not be sued directly.

The benefit of this was, of course, American competitiveness at the height of the industrial revolution.

The cost was that you could not demand compensation the factory owner down the road for dirtying your shirt with soot from his smokestack any longer.

If we can restore solid property rights and end manipulations of the energy market like subsidies, we can put an end to the issue of climate change without involving the heavy hand of government.

Editor’s note: This column is part of a head-to-head series. Read the other side here.

Harrison Conner is a junior economics major from Stanwood. He can be contacted at 335-2290 or by [email protected]. The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the staff of The Daily Evergreen or those of The Office of Student Media.