In November 2011, The Economist held an online debate on the following:
"This house believes that climate-control policies cannot rely on carbon capture and storage"
My contribution is included below...
Dear Sir,
We will be using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and therefore continuing to pollute. CCS is not currently economically viable and unless it's commerciality improves, it won't happen.
The debate appears to be about the relative effectiveness of CCS in mitigating climate change. This is largely irrelevant because if the process isn't economic, it won't happen.
So, how can CCS, or other pollutant reduction programmes be economic?
The extremely simple answer is by Governments legislating that, in 10 years time all products and processes must, by law, result in an environmentally neutral outcome.
How this would work...
Products and processes that pollute are allowed; however the cost of the product or process includes the cost of dealing with the resulting pollution. For example:
Cost to produce and market 1 litre of petrol: £0.65
Cost to remove pollution from usage of 1 litre of petrol: £15.00
REAL cost of 1 litre of petrol: £15.65
The £15 is used, by a new industry, to remove pollutants from the environment, thereby maintaining an environmentally neutral situation.
Rather than agonising over the potential effectiveness of CCS, Economists and true scientists should focus on the main issue which is that the REAL cost of fossil fuels (and other products that pollute, such as cement), is artificially low because the cost of dealing with the pollution has been ignored.
The sooner Economists wake up to the fact that their discipline is actually governed by the whole Planet's condition and factor in the full costs; Policymakers can be advised more effectively and the correct strategies adopted, sooner rather than later.
Sounds simple....
It is.
Can it be done?
Yes.
Will many learned people be nay-sayers?
Yes.
Politically it will be difficult even though technically & philosophically, it's straight-forward.
So let's promote the simple solution and build consensus around it, so as to make it easier for the Politicians to understand and then adopt the approach.
Lastly, how about a debate along these lines:
"If we are to avoid altering our environment as a result of pollution; simple economics indicates that products that cause pollution should include the cost of removing said pollution"
I'd be interested to hear people's valid arguments against this proposal.
I've been using the analogy of past human behaviour when, in Medieval times, people simply threw waste and excrement into the street. This could be done because it was the easiest approach and more importantly, did not incur a cost.
Over time we learned that doing this in fact, did have a cost and we now pay for sewage disposal.
Adding pollutants to the environment is analogous to Medieval waste disposal. What we haven't grasped, particularly the Economists, is that by ignoring the cost of current pollution, is actually the issue that urgently needs to be addressed.
The missing element is the modern equivalent of the sewerage system, which is a new industry designed to remove pollutants from the environment. Carbon Capture & Storage could be an element of this new industry; however it won't be unless the cost of pollution is borne by the consumer and then directed to the "pollution-control" industry. All of which is basic economics, not rocket science!
Sadly Economists and many Scientists as well as Politicians do not understand this, or if they do, they're not articulating it.
Thoughts?
So prices go up to £15.65, and the private individual will indeed be discouraged by from driving. So too will crucial services such as ambulances, fire engines and police cars. Perhaps they will be subsidised by the government, but still it will cause all sorts of complications.
ReplyDeleteHow about people who need to use cars to get themselves and others to work/school/etc.? If a trained policeman cannot travel to work because it is too expensive, for example, there will be huge knock-on consequences for the economy, and society as a whole.
Also, the 'basic economics' of your argument seem to forget the concept of inflation. The cost of the factors of production will increase substantially for producers, forcing them either to pass on these costs to the consumers or to go bankrupt. The consumers will be forced to pay more, as will the government and I imagine you will be able to understand what that means for inflation.
Whilst taxes may well be a good incentive to encourage everybody to search for more economically viable (and cheaper) alternatives, goods such as fuel and plastics are a necessity for most private individuals. Were they to be luxuries, we would be looking at far better prospects. The fact is whilst a philosophy of 'pay for what you cause' would be ideal, the standards (of healthcare/living/etc) of today's world simply are not attainable with that ethos.