The article you just read was brought to you by a few thousand dedicated readers. Will you join them?

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles we’ll post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

There’s a reason why our site is unique and why we don’t have to rely on those tactics — our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past year, we’ve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
Before you click away, we have something to ask you…

Do you value independent journalism that focuses on the issues that matter? Do you think Canada needs more in-depth, fact-based reporting? So do we. If you’d like to be part of the solution, we’d love it if you joined us in working on it.

The Tyee is an independent, paywall-free, reader-funded publication. While many other newsrooms are getting smaller or shutting down altogether, we’re bucking the trend and growing, while still keeping our articles free and open for everyone to read.

The reason why we’re able to grow and do more, and focus on quality reporting, is because our readers support us in doing that. Over 5,000 Tyee readers chip in to fund our newsroom on a monthly basis, and that supports our rockstar team of dedicated journalists.

Join a community of people who are helping to build a better journalism ecosystem. You pick the amount you’d like to contribute on a monthly basis, and you can cancel any time.

Help us make Canadian media better by joining Tyee Builders today.
We value: Our readers.
Our independence. Our region.
The power of real journalism.
We're reader supported.
Get our newsletter free.
Help pay for our reporting.

Why Climate Change Is Splitting Republicans

Emerging faction thinks party should adopt BC-style tax on carbon.

By Geoff Dembicki 3 Sep 2013 | Tyee Solutions Society

Geoff Dembicki reports on energy and climate change for The Tyee. Find his previous articles here.

Produced by Tyee Solutions Society (TSS) in collaboration with Tides Canada Initiatives (TCI). TCI neither influences nor endorses the particular content of TSS reporting. Other publications wishing to publish this story or other TSS-produced articles, please see this website for contacts and information.

image atom
'Heresy' for Republicans to admit climate change is real, says former congressman Bob Inglis.

Earlier this summer, conservatives and libertarians packed Washington, D.C.'s Globe Theatre for a debate on how -- or whether, even -- Republicans should fight climate change.

On one side were analysts from the Heartland Institute and Heritage Foundation, two climate skepticism groups convinced the Right should never support a tax on the carbon dioxide Americans emit for free.

Theirs is also the position of the Republican Party, whose leaders openly question the science behind global warming, and argue a carbon tax "would devastate an already struggling American economy."

Which is why Andrew Moylan, from a national think tank called the R Street Institute, wasn't certain how the right-leaning Globe Theatre crowd would react to his debate position: that a carbon tax could in fact make the U.S. more prosperous.

"We saw the RSVP list ahead of time," Moylan recounted, "and it didn't suggest the room would be stacked in our direction."

By night's end, Moylan and his debate partner, former Republican congressman Bob Inglis, won the room over.

"We had a show of hands, and there was a pretty large consensus in support of our position," Moylan went on. "Maybe what that says is people agree there's a theoretical case to be made" in favour of a carbon tax.

Climate change denial 'untenable' for GOP

A price on America's carbon emissions will surely remain theoretical for some time. No Republican in Congress publicly supports it. Nor does President Barack Obama. "We would never propose a carbon tax," the White House has promised.

Yet the Globe Theatre debate may signal emerging Republican fissures on global warming. "There is a divide within the party," one conservative scholar recently told the National Journal. "The position that climate change is a hoax is untenable."

And as conservatives such as Moylan and Inglis attempt to widen that divide, by pushing Republicans to embrace a carbon tax, they're looking north to the only jurisdiction in North America that has one: British Columbia.

"It's relatively early days for [B.C.'s carbon tax]," Moylan told The Tyee. "But it's encouraging for those of us who support the idea to be able to point to someplace where it's actually happening."

You could say it's early days as well for Moylan's think tank, the R Street Institute. It was founded just over a year ago by defectors from the Heartland Institute, one of North America's most prominent climate skepticism groups.

Since the late 1990s, Heartland has received more than $600,000 from Exxon Mobil and $55,000 from Koch Industries to question climate science. Last summer, though, it did something "extremely ill-advised" in the opinion of Eli Lehrer.

Lehrer used to head the non-profit group's insurance research team. But he left in May of 2012, when Heartland ran a billboard in Chicago comparing believers in global warming to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber.

"A great many people think there is significant risk of climate change," Lehrer told Insurance Journal at the time. "A billboard that says people who believe that this will happen are similar to terrorists withdraws you from rational debate."

The Unabomber ad caused major insurance company backers of Heartland to withdraw their support. Within 24 hours, Heartland pulled the ad down, and called off future billboards featuring Osama bin Laden, Charles Manson and Fidel Castro.

Not long afterwards Lehrer, along with other former Heartland colleagues, created the R Street Institute. "It was largely an amicable split," Moylan said. "Obviously at its core was a disagreement over a major policy issue."

A Cautionary Tale

On the issue of global warming, R Street has for the past year promoted a solution it believes is compatible with conservative values: a revenue-neutral carbon tax, where the proceeds, like in British Columbia, are used to offset other taxes.

"Instead of taxing things everybody agrees are good, like income, investment and entrepreneurship, we should tax bad things like greenhouse gases," Moylan said. "We think that will leave Americans richer in the future."

That remains a minority opinion in conservative circles.

Yet it's one shared by such prominent intellectuals as David Frum, a former George W. Bush speechwriter; Art Laffer, a senior adviser to Ronald Reagan; and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economic advisor on John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign.

"There are plenty of folks across a broad conservative spectrum" who support a carbon tax, Moylan said. But he admits, "It's definitely a fledgling group. We are under no illusions that this is going to be an easy fight."

Last November, one of that group's most vocal members, former Republican congressman Bob Inglis, flew to British Columbia to learn more about the carbon tax the province implemented in 2008.

Inglis' story is a cautionary tale for Republicans. The three-term House member from South Carolina helped write a carbon tax bill in 2009. In next year's primary vote, he lost to a Tea Party challenger by 42 percent.

"[My] most enduring heresy was saying that climate change was real, and let's do something about it," Inglis recently said. That conviction brought the former red state congressman to Canada last year.

The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions had him meet with the B.C. Liberal caucus, eat lunch with then-environment minister Terry Lake, and address the B.C. Business Council in Vancouver.

"In the case of British Columbia, I think you are leading" on climate change, Inglis said during another talk at Simon Fraser University. The U.S., he added, would do well to "follow your example."

Inglis was referring to the province's $30 per ton levy on carbon emissions. A recent Sustainable Prosperity study found the policy helped B.C. achieve big cuts to fuel use and emissions without hurting economic activity.

"B.C.'s experience shows that it is possible to have both a healthier environment and a strong economy," said lead study author Stewart Elgie, a professor of law and economics at University of Ottawa.

Still, Premier Christy Clark's aggressive plans for liquefied natural gas could undo any climate progress made by the carbon tax. And her Liberal government this spring froze the carbon tax rate at $30 for the next five years.

Nevertheless, the policy's basic logic, that revenue from taxing carbon is used to reduce other taxes, is very appealing to conservatives such as Inglis, the Pacific Institute's executive director, Tom Pedersen, told The Tyee.

"[Inglis] looks to the B.C. model as a template for the world," he said.

'Deep internal conflict'

For now Inglis is trying to make the province's carbon tax a template for the U.S. Right.

His efforts place him within a small, but growing, conservative contingent, National Journal reported, fearful that "if Republicans continue to dismiss or deny climate change, the party will become irrelevant."

That "deep internal conflict," the Journal has predicted, could soon cause an outright "GOP civil war over climate change." Nevertheless, it noted, "most Republicans feel much more secure on the side that denies the problem."

Denial of global warming is politically useful. It helps define the Republican Party as "anti-tax and pro-energy" in the eyes of the voting public, argues Marlo Lewis from the right-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"This clear product differentiation is an asset for the GOP," Lewis has said. "Conservative advocacy of a carbon tax can only blur the battle lines, divide GOP leaders, and demoralize the movement's activist base."

Some green thinkers are also skeptical. Even if conservatives like Inglis and Moylan are successful in getting Republicans to embrace a B.C.-style carbon tax, Grist writer David Roberts is unsure how much good it would do for the climate.

"It's just a fantasy that we can limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees with nothing but a [carbon] tax," he recently wrote. In his opinion fixing the climate demands a massive societal shift akin to wartime mobilization.

But the "large-scale government intervention" needed to enable that shift is anathema to the current Republican worldview. "It is today's hyper-conservatism," Roberts believes, "that is ultimately going to have to change."

Moylan from the R Street Institute agrees that a carbon tax "isn't going to do a tremendous amount in and of itself to reduce global emissions." Even so, he argues, adopting the policy would be an "important symbolic gesture."

More important still: putting a price on U.S. carbon emissions, and then using the revenue to reduce taxes across the country, Moylan believes, "will leave Americans richer in the future."

The "wealthier and more prosperous society" enabled by a carbon tax, he adds, would be better able to pay for the solutions needed to solve climate change, and fix the damages that it causes.

To bolster his argument Moylan looks north to British Columbia. Five years after implementing a price on carbon, emissions there have dropped. So too have tax rates. "Those are definitely some positive signs that we look to," he said.

He's hopeful the Republican Party will someday also see them.  [Tyee]

Read more: Politics, Environment

Share this article

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Join us and grow independent media in Canada

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free


The Barometer

Tyee Poll: What Coverage Would You Like to See More of This Year?

Take this week's poll