He may have missed out on the presidency, but when it comes to climate change, Sen. Bernie Sanders had it right.

In a 2014 contributing piece to The Huffington Post, Sanders implored Congress to pursue a tax on carbon consumption, writing, “A carbon tax must be a central part of our strategy for dramatically reducing [air] pollution, a view shared by… both ends of the political spectrum.”

Last week, Justin Trudeau, Canadian prime minister, took that suggestion to task. Trudeau announced that Canada will impose a steadily increasing tax on carbon emissions beginning in 2018 in attempt to meet standards set forth by the Paris Agreement.

Under Trudeau’s rule, the territories can impose the tax either directly, meeting a $10 per gallon value, or impose a cap-and-trade system. The “cap” would put a limit on emissions, and the “trade” would provide a market for carbon allowances, meaning the less the province emits, the less it has to pay. If a territory fails to choose a method of taxation, the government will implement its own basic carbon tax of $10 per ton, increasing by an increment of $10 each year until it reaches $50 in 2022.

The Paris Agreement reached its minimum entry requirement — 50 U.N. parties that account for at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions — on Oct. 5, and will go into effect Nov. 4. The United States and China ratified the accord on Sept. 3, adding to the 77 parties who have entered the agreement. While this may seem like a step in the right direction, for decades, the United States has continuously fallen flat on international environmental policy.

Congress has relentlessly avoided appeals for a comprehensive climate legislation to reduce the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions over the past eight years. We have failed to enact long-discussed carbon taxation, but as the second largest emitter in the world, it is critical that we take action now.

The Environmental Protection Agency reported that, in 2014, the United States was responsible for a total of 15.1 trillion pounds in greenhouse gas emissions, with carbon emissions alone accounting for over 80 percent of this outflow.

A carbon tax is the most feasible, effective incentive-based method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not only will it curb our largest source of air pollution, but it will promote a shift toward more efficient, cleaner renewable sources. Leveling the playing field will increase the demand for renewable energy, increasing its highly criticized affordability and accessibility.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — the organization responsible for the Paris Agreement — negotiated the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Former President Bill Clinton signed the agreement, however, Bush later removed the signature as he felt the protocol was too forceful and that limiting emissions would impede the U.S. economy.

At the moment, our primary problem is that we face the threat of a presidential successor who fails to recognize the scope and severity of the climate change crisis.

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” presidential candidate Donald Trump tweeted, adding on a separate occasion, “I will not support or endorse a carbon tax.”

While advertising her environmental policies, Hillary Clinton has also failed to provide support for a carbon tax. But her ambitious plans to produce a third of the nation’s electricity from renewable resources by 2027 and cut greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent from their 2005 levels by 2050 are highly impractical without a tax incentive to hasten the transition to clean sources.

In order to work, the carbon tax would have to pass through Congress, a feat which such legislation would likely not survive under a Republican House and Senate. Much of the opposition is based on the opinion that imposing a carbon tax would hurt the economy. But economists on both sides of the political spectrum have argued in favor of the benefits that revenue-neutral carbon taxes have the potential to produce, including job production, the cost benefits of a higher demand for clean energy and increased GDP and average annual income.

Over the past eight years — in response to growing concern — the United States has taken big steps towards decreasing our carbon footprint, but it has not been enough.

The United States was responsible for 16 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 2012, yet only holds 4 percent of the world’s population, while India — a country holding roughly 18 percent of the world’s population — is only responsible for 6 percent of global carbon emissions.

The United States has contributed enough to the climate change crisis and steadily decreasing air quality. Now we must do our part to counter the consequences of our exorbitant GHG emissions by imposing a tax that promotes renewable resources and, overtime, promises a more cost effective means to a cleaner environment.

Jaime Viens primarily writes about social and environmental issues for The Pitt News. Write to her at [email protected].