But where can revenue scorers get the $1 trillion over 10 years the border tax was supposed to raise? Well, ahem, a carbon tax is also a consumption tax. To make it acceptable to free marketers, it would have to come with a full stop to all climate-related mandates and subsidies including fuel-mileage rules. It would also have to be clear that all carbon-tax proceeds are being used to cut payroll or income taxes.

What I find, Republicans and Democrats can disagree about what to do about what we are learning, but everybody, everybody on both sides of the aisle believes that we should study and understand what is happening to the planet because it is changing and everybody knows that.

Those who believe the climate is not changing might do well to use the possibility that it is as an excuse to reach a goal that has always eluded conservatives. Here is an opportunity to transfer the tax burden from work to consumption, from payroll taxes to, dare I say it, a carbon tax.

I mean there is a clear externality presented by a carbon use and climate change and the typical remedy for that is putting a price as a tax, and then economist have debated over time whether that tax should be a sliding scale, how it should be said, that’s a design feature, but it is clearly the most efficient way to deal with the problem.

[A carbon tax] would be a strategy to control emissions that is consistent with conservative principles.

Elected officials owe it to every American, and especially to younger generations who are understandably concerned about the future, to work on a comprehensive solution to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

What we need is a new approach to energy tax and regulation that advances our strategic policy objectives and recognizes that the period of scarcity that began in the 1970s is over. That is best achieved by getting rid of—literally repealing—a host of tax subsidies and regulatory requirements and replacing them with a carbon tax.