The 2024 wildfire season brought unprecedented damages within Oregon, ranging from economic costs related to wildfire deaths, raising the amount of money Oregonians are personally spending to battle changing climates and the potential production costs within the land.
A group of faculty members from the University of Oregon, Reed College and other renowned economists and policymakers created a nonpartisan organization called the Forum on Oregon Climate Economics (FORCE), where they issued their first study titled “The Economic Costs of Climate Change for Oregonians; A First Look.” This study was created in a nonpartisan group and studied the costs being faced by Oregonians due to the impacts of climate change.
The study estimated that the average Oregonian loses $3,900 annually due to climate costs and an estimated $450 per day for families that were exposed to wildfire smoke.
The costs used for this study look at direct costs, opportunity costs from damaged land, indirect costs and risk versus expected values.
When looking at all the different variables, the staggering investment made out of pocket for average Oregonian families is only predicted to increase.
The change in the climate has led to severe heat waves, storms and floods, which, in turn, reduced labor productivity, added expenses in cooling costs and diminished property values within coastal communities.
The economic analysis doesn’t begin to cover the holistic damages done by wildfires, which range from damaged infrastructure within communities to personal losses and permanently damaging ecosystems.
Governor Kotek signed a bill approving the allocation of $218 million to the Oregon Department of Forestry and the Oregon State Fire Marshals during the special legislative session, with a gross estimate of the damages from the 2024 wildfire season reaching over $350 million.
Additionally, in the Governor’s Recommended Budget (2025-27), Kotek advocates for an additional $130 million for the state’s wildfire readiness and a recommended $150 million directed directly towards state agencies to pay for wildfire suppression.
In a statement regarding the special session, Governor Kotek said, “I am grateful to legislators for taking swift action to ensure the state’s fire season costs are addressed and the bills are paid. Next year, I look forward to working with legislators to ensure the state finds a pathway for sustainable funding to cover wildfire costs in the years ahead.”
The direct out-of-pocket expenses burdening Oregon’s state budget and everyday Oregonians are continuing to rise, and it’s unfair to directly allocate these expenses to the public when the average Oregonian is not a top carbon polluter.
A practical and fiscally sustainable solution to holding those responsible for the conditions fueling the current wildfires is implementing a carbon tax; this would remove the financial burden from taxpayers to large-scale carbon polluters who are responsible.
In the past, many state legislators and climate policy groups have mentioned the implementation of a modest-priced carbon tax and estimated that this could generate up to $3 billion annually.
This could serve as the primary fund to pay for wildfire response, infrastructure initiatives and rehabilitation efforts and other state initiatives necessary to curb damages from climate change.
Vivian Reynoldson, a sophomore studying economics and global studies, commented on the economic implementations of the upfront taxpayer costs of the current Oregonian taxpayer; “From an economic standpoint, there is an obligation for each corporation … ultimately if they don’t help save the environment, they can’t continue their production process.”
“Climate change and climate justice needs to move in the direction of taxing the rich because they have the money, and they are directly causing the problems others are seeing. It’s important to get corporations to understand what they stand to lose, and what they are causing,” Reynoldson said. “Taxes can’t harm them because the resources they need to continue their sustainable practices and ensure they have the resources in ten years would be to protect the environment.”
It’s unfair and unsustainable to continue funding wildfire response through the already limited revenue Oregon has, especially considering the unique kicker law, which limits additional revenues for the rainy day fund, leaving the state in desperate need of finding better sources of funding to cover the rising costs of climate change.
The concept of the carbon tax hasn’t been new to Oregon; however, the direct pricing on emissions (in other words, large industrial plants) would successfully raise the necessary funding, and critical exemptions on necessary market items would also reduce any constraints on consumers for necessary goods.
Although the carbon tax has faced considerable opposition from industrial lobbyists, it’s the only way to shift the economic responsibility onto the rightful polluters.
