Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
Reply With QuoteLet me go off a tangent for a second.
I'll start by conceding on the main point; that is, let's assume an increase in CO2 does indeed result into increased temperature, and let's also assume that the increase in CO2 comes from human activity. Yes, this is contentious to say the least, there a huge debate on data and all that jazz but...just indulge me, and for a second pretend that the science is settled.
From the premise above, it derives the well-known statement that humanity as a whole needs to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions. This means that CO2 emissions become a limited issue resource, something of which only a fixed amount is available every year. The question is: how do you divide up this limited resource among humans?
I think there are three options (I assume there is a mechanism to precisely compute emissions, which might be far-fetched, but it's beside the point here).
- The equal option. You take the total of permitted CO2 emissions, and divide it in equal parts. This means that people who currently emit a lot (think private jet owners), will have to considerably reduce their emissions, and probably lower their living standards. This seems fair and just, after all they are the biggest contributors to the current situation. It's also the application at a lower scale of the accepted principle that developed nations shoudl cut more than developing ones, because they have contributed more to the problem.
Also, sharing CO2 emissions like this allows people who currently emit less to increase their activity and improve their life; this too seems fair and reasonable.
- The equal reduction option. Everyone cuts current emissions by the same percentage, so that the total comes down to the required, permitted amount. This is not as fair as the previous solution. Crued example: if you have a 20-room mansion, and you are asked to cut emissions by 20%, turning off heating in four of your rooms is not a big deal, and won't affect your life much (unless you are used to throw gigantic parties). But if you live in a two-bedroom council house, a similar cut probably means your home will be cold for the whole winter.
- The Market option. In this case, you fix a price for emissions, and let people buy permits to emit according to their needs. Economic theory says that the people who most need emitting will be willing to pay the price.
As far as I can see, the only option considered by GW advocates (a horribly imprecise label, I know) is the third one. I think that's because of ideological reasons (the belief that The Market is the natural and best construct for social interactions) and some practical ones (how would you implement or police the other two options?), and these are valid point.
But, at the same time, no-one seems to realise how deeply unfair this option is, and what kind of social consequences it brings. Using a price mechanism to allocate emissions means that very wealthy people, who by dint of their lifestyle are major contributors to the alleged dangerous levels of CO2, will simply outbid everyone else, and be allowed to continue emitting at will (subject to wallet capacity). At the same time, a lot of people might find themselves unable to meet basic needs because they won't have enough money. From a social justice point of view, this seems to be the opposite of what should happen, as the burden of adjustment, eventually, will mainly fall on the poor (and might end up killing a lot of them altogether).
I think not many GW advocates have given much thought about this, and I also think it weakens their position considerably. I hear some of them shouting: "You are right, but we need to do something".
This might be correct (I started by conceding on this right at the start), but doing something doesn't necessarily mean that you have to do any and whatever thing. And this seems particularly important if your solution is going to make the world a more unfair and more divided and unequal place. I don't think you can liquidate this sort of objection by simply saying that "An imperfect solution is better than no solution".
Lastly, I think there might also be an underlying bigger issue here: how do you sit a proposal that calls for a limitation in the use of some energy sources, and therefore, ultimately, a limitation in economic activity, with a entire world view that is based on perpetual growth, and therefore, by definition, on the use and consumption of every possible resource? Especially when this world view, based on the absence of any reasonable limit to economic activity, is probably one of the main drivers behind the (alleged) critical situatoin you are trying to solve?
I think here the risk is that you end up replacing one unsustainable, exploitative mode of development, based on cars / oil, with another equally unsustainable and exploitative one, this time based on Electrification and Lithium. This will call for gigantic rebuilding of all sort of infrastructure, and down the line it will probably run into another version of the 'limited issue resource' problem that we started from.
The only certain result of this switch will be to spin one more time the same development machine that brought us into the current situation; and that, I suspect, is the point of the exercise.
IPB
