In February, a brief climate-change debate was aired on national television between Bill Nye the Science Guy and U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn.

It followed a media pattern that has become all too familiar: A one-to-one debate was held on a topic that more than 97 percent of climate scientists are unanimous on, lending Blackburn's views unwarranted credibility. One useful point, however, did come up during the debacle, and we can say it in a word: jobs.

Blackburn phrased it as "cost-benefit analysis," suggesting that solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will hurt the economy. But it was not a claim backed by real information.

Typically an anecdotal story of a coal miner is conjured, where we are led to imagine the laborer's sooted face and sweat-matted hair as he breaks the news to his seven children that the mine is closing. The story that you don't hear is that the war against coal miners was waged decades ago by the industry itself, and the industry won.

Technology and automation have replaced the crowds of workers you might have seen early in the previous century. The procurement and processing of fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil are capital-intensive, and comparatively little labor is involved. More labor is required per unit of energy produced for wind and solar, so a tax that shifts the focus to clean energy actually creates jobs.

Still, the question remains: How would a carbon tax affect sectors that are energy-intensive, such as manufacturing? A recent study conducted by Regional Economic Models Inc. (REMI), a public-policy research group active across the U.S., addressed this exact question. This is the type of information that deserves honest and thorough debate in our public media, and careful study by Sens. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander.

The main takeaway from the nonpartisan REMI report: A tax on carbon that returns the funds to households will create millions of jobs. This works because the jobs that are produced by increased household income and spending far outpace losses in low-labor sectors such as mining. Sectors such as health care, construction, and state and local government stand to gain from the plan. The monthly dividend returned to a family of four would start at just under $50 in 2016 and increase to just under $200 in 2020.

There are some impacts that could be viewed as negative, such as a cost-of-living increase of 1-1.6 percent by 2020. Perhaps the greatest change for households would be the increase in the cost of electricity, with prices projected to spike until around 2023, after which they would again fall as the cost of clean energy comes down and energy efficiency becomes the norm.

There are other benefits that the coming energy shift would provide: a reduction in the number of premature deaths due to coal emissions, projected to reach 13,000 per year by 2025. Another benefit is an estimated 33 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, five years ahead of the EPA goal.

I do not advocate a fee-and-dividend carbon tax because I love taxes; I do so because it is the most effective way to address a problem that is quickly spiraling past the point of no return. Even though there remain many uncertainties about the impact of climate change, one thing is inevitable: A do-nothing approach will ruin the economy.

A tax at the source of the problem that returns the funds to households is the most practical and manageable step that we can take. It creates jobs, involves no regulation and provides a much-needed boost to our energy transformation. In a state where we elect Marsha Blackburn, and where Piedmont Natural Gas sponsors Earth Day, congressional support of a fee-and-dividend carbon tax is a way to show real Tennessee leadership that will start to heal our living planet.

Ryan Egly is an application engineer in La Vergne.

Read or Share this story: http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/07/09/carbon-tax-practical-job-creating-solution/12363447/