The economy has been stuck in first gear going on five years now since the Great Recession, and the outlook is for more of the same. Technology has eliminated many toll booth and grocery store checker jobs and soon we'll grab i-Pads to order when we enter a restaurant. Additive manufacturing (i.e., 3-D printing) bodes well for new online businesses, but not too well for those seeking manufacturing jobs. So, where are all of our unemployed workers going to find jobs?

At the same time, the world is warming, sea level is rising and we are experiencing catastrophic storms, flooding, drought and raging fires. Many believe that fossil fuel use for power and transportation is the greatest source of greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Others argue that global warming is a cycle of nature. No matter which side of that argument you are on, you should certainly be alarmed that earlier this year Beijing's Air Quality Index hit a recent memory high of 755! This pollution travels around the globe in the jet stream for everyone to experience.


We need a way to employ many of the currently unemployed and the new job seekers, while developing a long-term plan to combat global climate change. There is no doubt that a major infrastructure stimulus-type program is needed to get multitudes of people back to work, fixing roads and bridges, national parks, maybe even light and fast rail where it makes sense. We also need to improve support for our educational system.

With entitlements and defense spending being protected, funding will have to come from increased broad-brush tax increases and expanded tax revenue driven by job creation. So, how do we "jump-start" our economy while finding additional revenue to employ millions of Americans, and increase spending on education?

Our citizens and elected officials need to compromise. There should be some agreement between the two parties in Washington where the president approves the Keystone XL pipeline and opens up some of our federal lands for oil and gas drilling in exchange for a broad carbon tax, a value added tax (VAT) that is focused on the reduction of greenhouse gas generation. This would improve the economy with more energy jobs, allow us to be an exporter of refined gas/oil products, reduce our dependency on Middle Eastern oil and reduce the local concerns over "fracking" in cities and near more populated areas (if more drilling is opened up elsewhere), while at the same time incentivizing entrepreneurial risk takers to create "green" jobs. Further, the Canadian tar sands oil will ultimately be developed and none of us wants the pollution that would come out of transporting crude to China and refining there.

The U.S. emits 5.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. A $30/mt carbon tax would generate $165 billion a year. What would this tax effect? Coal-fired electricity costs would be taxed at 3 cents per kW-hour used, natural gas fired at about half that ($0.015/kW-hour used) and wind/solar at near zero. Burning a gallon of gasoline would be taxed at 25 cents a gallon.

Of course, this tax should be applied globally to level the economic playing field. With the vast satellite imagery available, it is well-known where the greenhouse gases are produced. Imports could be taxed based on their emissions at the originating country of export. The revenue generated by the VAT could be used partially for reducing the debt and partially for supporting an infrastructure-type jobs and education programs.


"Green" habits would be rewarded while dirtier habits penalized. New "green" manufacturing jobs would be created. The VAT tax collected at the point of consumption is the best means of ensuring that those funds are used as prescribed. We don't need anyone "gaming" a cap-and-trade program in which a large fraction of the tax would end up on the balance sheets of big banks.


Al Weimer, a Niwot resident, is H.T. Sears Memorial Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of Colorado and executive director of the Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels. The opinions expressed in this article are his own and not those of his employer.