A $40 carbon tax levied on Hawaii’s 19 million tons of annual carbon emissions would yield $760 million a year — an amount roughly equal to about 1 percent of Hawaii’s economy.

That money could be returned to taxpayers through an annual rebate check. Or it could be used to lower other state taxes, pay down Hawaii’s burgeoning debt or fund the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation’s rail project.

There’s a lot to like in a state carbon tax. Hawaii has low industrial carbon emissions and the public supports moving to a 100 percent renewable energy economy.

A carbon tax offers Hawaii a chance to make history. It swims against the tide of Trump administration crony conservatism aimed at exiting the Paris climate accord, favoring fossil fuel fat cats and gutting environmental regulation.

Is a carbon tax merely an impossible left-wing dream? Hardly. Prominent Republican Party elders back the idea.

These include former Republican secretaries of state James Baker and George Shultz, as well as George W. Bush-era Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Baker, Shultz and Paulson head the Climate Leadership Council (CLC). The CLC’s manifesto is “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends.” The CLC proposes returning the estimated $200-300 billion raised annually by a $40 per tonne national carbon tax through an annual $2,000 refund check sent to everyone with a Social Security number.

The revenue-neutral tax would penalize carbon use exclusively. It would reward less carbon emission. What could be more simple?

Other notables also support the idea. These include Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (formerly chief executive officer of ExxonMobil), Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Hawaii’s own U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz.

In 2015, Schatz proposed a national $45-per-ton tax on carbon. Bernie Sanders also supports a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton probably would have come around to supporting a carbon tax had she become president.

The economic literacy of a carbon tax is underpinned by the U.S. General Accounting Office’s (GAO’s) calculation of the “social cost” of carbon. That’s an “all in” estimation of carbon pollution’s damage to economies, human health and ecosystems.

The GAO pegs the social cost of carbon at $40 per tonne in 2007 dollars. The GAO sees that number doubling or more by 2050 if nothing is done. That’s a major economic distortion.

Some countries — like Canada, France and Australia — are now using the social cost of carbon in considering carbon trading “price floors” below which prices can’t fall. Such floors provide greater trading and investment certainty. Carbon market reforms between now and 2020 in Europe, Japan and China are all expected to incorporate variations of a price floor based upon the social cost.

Hawaii, however, is just too small to support a local carbon trading market. A statewide carbon price, however, would be highly synergistic to the state’s 100 percent renewable energy goal. A carbon tax just nudges Hawaii along its existing trajectory. What’s not to like?

The Carbon Tax Center, a pro-carbon tax think tank, sees Hawaii as among nine U.S. states that look the most promising for implementing a carbon tax. The others are Washington state, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Maryland, and (for what it’s worth), Washington, D.C.

Implementing a carbon tax in Hawaii and leading the way on climate change could change environmental and political history. If it does so, Hawaii could be the blue state that roared.

Stewart Taggart is a Kailua-based environmental writer.