LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Higher Petro Costs Not Biden’s Fault

Mr. Clumpner’s Nov. 12 letter to the editor is not accurate in blaming the current administration for higher gas and heating costs. 

Justin Jacobs (Financial Times) explains that investors’ pressure on companies to be more disciplined on growth has reined in domestic oil production, and, he writes, “None of the actions from the White House have altered the trajectory of U.S. crude supply in the 10 months since Biden took office.”

In order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, President Biden pledged under the Paris Agreement to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 50% or more by 2030. “Pathways to Paris: A Policy Assessment of the 2030 U.S. Climate Target” (a report by the Rhodium Group) concluded that meeting the Paris climate pledge with Biden’s proposed climate legislation and budget would result in little to no additional energy cost while significantly reducing the cost of health effects from burning fossil fuels. This is based on the original Build Back Better Act, which has been whittled down from $3.5 trillion and is in the Senate now.

Many organizations are concerned that the U.S. will fail to meet our pledged greenhouse-gas reductions. A carbon price can help us reach our climate goals. Well-designed carbon-pricing legislation – such as the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act and those currently under consideration in the Senate – includes a dividend returned to most or all American households to address the resulting rise in energy costs.

Headlines such as “White House-Backed Carbon Tax in Sight for Biden’s Climate Bill” report the possibility for passage. Seventy-three percent of U.S. citizens think that the government should tax corporations for how much carbon dioxide they emit.

With international-border carbon adjustments and corporate carbon-tax revenue collected going back to families to offset their additional costs, we can ensure a livable and affordable future.

Laurel Last

Green Bay, Wisconsin