It is a nice Sunday, the sun shines and I read comfortably at my bed. I skipped my running today, but given the training of the week, it was more a wise decision than a sign of laziness.
Proof of that is that I am not reading a conforting book. The book is called "Climate Shock. Economic consequences of a warmer planet". The book is based on more than 10 years of research on climate impacts, and show that there is at least 10% of a warming of 6 degrees by 2100. This is a warming that we cannot ensure is compatible with life as we know it. We are heading towards that number, unless we reduce the concentration of emissions now.
I am on a sabbatical, that contrary to the most common uses (travelling the world) will be mainly focus on my Phd on the achievement of prosperity without economic growth. I am lucky to have the time and resources to spend time studying one ofthe most important challenges of our current time, together with pandemics and poverty. I took an open look, although my experience showed me that the pursue of more material wealth against time is working worse and worse for people.
The thing is, that scientists know the problem with certainty since 1970's, economists have tools to solve such a negative externality for even longer. Humanc cause climate changes damages is a negative externatility because those who pollute more are not paying for the costs of releasing carbon, while areas with very little emissions will suffer the most of climate change. Please, do not even think that living in the rich north will save you, as the impacts at the end of the century will be vast and everywhere, starting by the mediterranean. According to Oxfam, the 1% wealthiest is responsible for 2 times more pollution than the 50% poorest. That should include the class component of climate change responsability. We are not equally responsible of climate change, and chances are that the richer you are, the bigger your share of pollution.
No matter whether you vote conservative, democrats, socialists or green parties. It is a general agreement that when you cause harm you should paid for it. Today we are not aimin on this basic principle on carbon emissions, and even some presummably liberal countries like the US, are subsidizing petrol and fracking activities, making the clean energy transition more difficult.
Very few of us like taxes, and some of us like having public services. But some taxes are better than others. A tax on labor is bad, because we want people who work to be better off, while taxing carbon is good, because that makes the pollutor to pay for the damage, and it makes it easier to everyone to act in line with the environment. Goods and services that pollute less will be cheaper, so for consumers will be easy to choose well, and business will have clear market signal to develop better products and services.
The problem of such an obvious measure is that we expected all countries to align on the amount, and we see this as a cost. Despite common call for a global agreement that did not happen in the last 40 years, I advocate for the creation of a club of carbon tax, where anyone outside the club will have tarif or penalty to sell products without carbon taxes. Europe, China and many other nations are big enough to do it. The citizens will enjoy lower labor taxes, and the confort to take the necessary steps towards the low carbon transition. Free riding should be avoided through penalties in trade. That may temporarly reduce overall GDP, but will increase available income and estimulate internal demand, while making the tax policy more aligned with the goods and bads of our economic activity.
While I advocate for indivudal change, and invest in the protection of our natural commons, I think the most effective step for a better future is the implementation of a revenue neutral carbon tax. If the Covid made the much needed increase in expenses on health and education, I think is a good reason to raise revenue taxes too.
We got enough green washing, and promising meetings with no commitments. We need a carbon tax now, with at least 40 dollars per ton of carbon dioxide, and economies that focus on wellbeing and not economic growth. I am more excited in a future with a healthier planet, meaningful work and innovation, social justice, high levels of social and natural capital, more culture and less consumption, and more leisure. There are tools such as carbon pricing that are well known by all agents of the society, and the time to implement the single most effective way to deal with this crisis with unaceptable risks has come.
That should not be a lonely journey of a few, but a massive claim, independent on your economic, social class, religion, belief system. We share all an idea of fairness, and any harm to others, should be paid or compensated. Carbon release is not an exeption, whether we all do a little or not. Increasing carbon concentration to 700ppm at the end of the century is not an acceptable risk, if you do not believe it, check with your insurance partner if they would insure you for an accident with a likelyhood of disastrous outcome 10%. They won't, because they normally work with 100 times lower magnitudes.
Happy sunday to all
Comments
Post a Comment