We should support the PROVE IT Act

In a recent editorial (“Miller-Meeks and others should reject costly emissions data mandates, Aug. 4) Mark Heckman, former president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, argues against the PROVE IT Act, saying it "threatens to burden Iowa's hardworking farmers and families with new taxes and inflated costs." He sees it as a step toward putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions (usually called a "carbon price"), and fears the economic consequences of such a price.

Most proposals for a carbon price include a so-called "border correction," which levels the playing field between producers in countries that do have a carbon price and those that don't, and this is where the PROVE IT Act comes in. It would require the Department of Energy to study the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of certain products, for example aluminum, cement or fertilizer. Such a study will likely "prove" that U.S.-made products are, in general, more sustainable than those produced in other countries. This will strengthen U.S. industry in the global market. We will need something like the PROVE IT Act whether we enact a carbon price or not because Europe, home to some of our largest trading partners, has already started phasing in a border correction.

Heckman says that a carbon price would result only in cost increases with no benefit. This is incorrect, and there are two reasons why.

One is that the actual economic cost of a carbon price would be minimal, as has been already demonstrated by the many countries and states that already have them. The second is that he does not account for the economic costs of not implementing a carbon price, and they are huge!

Why do I say the economic costs of a carbon price are minimal? Carbon pricing thus far has not shown a negative effect on economies, which is what was predicted by most economic models before we had a chance to do the "real world" experiment. The U.S.-based non-partisan think tank National Bureau of Economic Research used real-world evidence (not models) and found "no evidence to support claims that the [carbon] tax would adversely impact employment or GDP growth."

And what about the economic consequences of not taking action? Droughts, floods and fires are happening more and more around the world. Crop insurance payouts increased by 500% from 2001 to 2022. These increased costs come out of the pockets of Iowans. Climate scientists tell us we must reduce emissions as quickly as possible, and economists tell us that the best way to do so is to put a price on them — a step that has already been taken by more than seventy countries or states.

So no, the PROVE IT Act will not harm Iowans, it will help them and all Americans. Let Sens. Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley, and Reps. Ashley Hinson and Mariannette Miller-Meeks know that you support it!

Peter Rolnick is a retired physicist who volunteers with the Iowa City chapter of Citizens' Climate Lobby.