I am writing to respectfully add perspective to sheep rancher Carson Jorgensen’s opinion on the PROVE IT Act, a recently introduced congressional bill. Having been a part of a sheep ranching family, I understand the difficulties of the business and empathize with his concerns about government interference.
First, he states that consumers and businesses will be stuck with paying costly taxes as a result of this act. Its main objective is to provide reliable data on the carbon footprint of U.S. industries compared to other countries, focusing on transparency and accountability. It does not provide any new authority to any federal agency to impose a greenhouse gas emissions tax or fee. If carbon tariffs are eventually considered, they can be designed to level the playing field between domestic producers adhering to strict environmental regulations and foreign competitors with lax standards. This can reduce carbon emissions without disproportionately harming consumers.
Secondly, the PROVE IT Act is unlikely to increase inflation. Inflation is driven by a complex set of economic factors, including supply chain disruptions, labor shortages and monetary policies. The assertion that this act will contribute to inflation overlooks its true purpose: environmental accountability and transparency. Accurate emissions reporting will benefit U.S. exports. Products with lower carbon footprints can be exempt from international carbon tariffs, making them more competitive abroad. This could boost U.S. industries, support economic growth, counteract inflation and pass the savings onto Americans. Additional savings can be realized over time by reducing the need for expensive regulatory measures.
Jorgensen states that the European Carbon Border Adjustment, or CBAM, is a failure. The EU’s CBAM is in a transitional phase and will not be fully implemented until 2026. Attributing recent protests by European farmers solely to this mechanism oversimplifies the situation. Much of the protest is over expiring tax breaks and the import of cheaper agricultural products likely produced by carbon-intensive processes. Placing a tariff on imported products would make the local prices of products competitive with those imports.
Lastly, bipartisan support for the PROVE IT Act shows a broad recognition of the importance of understanding and addressing carbon emissions. This collaboration, led by Utah Rep. John Curtis, should be seen as a positive step toward effective and balanced environmental policies rather than a cause for concern. Claims that lawmakers do not read the fine print are speculative. The legislative process involves extensive review, debate and amendments to address concerns and ensure that the final bill serves the public interest. Does Jorgensen have examples of his belief that many environmental initiatives “play out as revenue transfers from working taxpayers to elite Democrat donors in the form of contracts, subsidies and tax credits, while delivering little in the way of measurable environmental benefits”?
There are numerous instances where government intervention has led to positive outcomes without creating excessive burdens. Examples include regulations on lead in gasoline and the establishment of national parks and protected areas. These actions have resulted in significant public health and environmental benefits.
The PROVE IT Act aims to provide essential data on carbon emissions, facilitating informed decision making for a sustainable future. Misrepresenting its purpose and potential impacts does a disservice to the discourse on climate policy. By learning from international experiences and implementing balanced and equitable measures, the U.S. can reduce our dependence on polluting fossil fuel markets.
Karen Johnson is a pediatric nurse practitioner advocating for family health and a concerned voter for an overheating climate. She lives in Salt Lake City.