Circular Congregation Church in Charleston SC is on almost every travel brochure for Charleston. It’s indeed a beautiful building and one of the icons for the city. However, what is not mentioned in those brochures is the information board placed in its courtyard. The information on the board is unnerving and alarming.

This information board is part of the global blue line project of coastal towns in which the Church is participating. It says that the Church is on one of the highest elevations on the peninsula. As yet, it is projected to be underwater for 60 days in a year by 2050. If a 1989 Hugo-sized hurricane strikes today, the Church would be flooded in the storm surge.

I wouldn’t be surprised if by 2050 there is an expensive storm barrier wall along Fort Sumpter to protect the city, like Venice Italy today. The streets may even be replaced by canals. (One of the streets in the city is called water street. There was a canal before. It might therefore be more appropriate to say that the streets would be reclaimed by canals since the lowlands had been submerged before.)

This raises uncomfortable questions in my mind. How much am I responsible for the impending calamity? I drove 500 miles one way to visit this place burning gallons of fossil fuel along the way. I know that I didn’t pay for my fair share of the environmental costs as part of my action. So yes, I share some responsibility.

The answer however is not to stop visiting the place at all. I should pay for my fair share of the environmental costs. But the best way of doing it, as any economist would tell you, is thru carbon pricing. That mechanism will ensure that I pay the full price for what I consume including environmental degradation. It will therefore give me the power to make my own decision on how much I should travel and in what mode. I may then opt for an EV or choose another option. But my options will be in apple to apple, taking into account the full costs and ensuring market-driven efficiency in my choice.

Sadly, for political reasons, we are not able to take these decisions. It’s not about the left versus right ideology. It’s about the intergenerational legacy one leaves behind. 2050 may seem distant for me. But that should not stop me from being concerned that I consumed (and degraded) more than my fair share of what was created and developed by others in the past. My share of the intergeneration accounts ought to be more than net zero. That is, I ought to be able to make net positive contributions. But at the same time, it should be in a market-driven efficient mode that is equitable to all — past, present, and future, including me.