drplokta: (Default)
[personal profile] drplokta
All these attempts to micro-manage carbon emissions are futile, and in fact probably counter-productive by associating environmentalism with a new puritanism. If international agreement can be reached, the fix is relatively simple.

1. Determine the actual marginal environmental cost of an extra tonne of CO2 emissions -- current estimates are between US$10 and US$80.

2. Tax fossil fuels at this level at the point of extraction -- it's a lot easier to tax a few hundred mining and oil companies than it is to tax a few billion consumers. Also tax deforestation and other activities likely to put more CO2 into the atmosphere. Guarantee the tax level for at least 15 years (possibly with an inflation adjustment) so that people and companies can make long term investments based on it.

3. Rebate the tax to any user of fossil fuels who can demonstrate that their use will keep the CO2 out of the atmosphere for at least 500 years. Give a similar rebate to anyone who demonstrably removes CO2 from the atmosphere for at least 500 years.

4. Keep 10% of the funds raised for UN programmes to help countries who are especially affected by climate change. Pay the remainder to national governments in proportion to their population as at 1 January 2009. Permanent migrants get their share transferred from their old country to their new one, so you need to recalculate the shares every ten years or so. It's up to the governments if they use the money for subsidising fuel for poor people, climate change mitigation, or fancy new presidential palaces.

5. Do nothing else -- leave it to the market to decide how much to insulate homes, what kind of light bulbs to use, how many airports to build, whether or not to use patio heaters, etc.

A one-way flight to the US from the UK produces about 1.25 tonnes of CO2 per passenger, so the fuel for such a flight would be taxed at between US$12.50 and US$100. Air Passenger Duty for such a flight is currently £40, and will be £150 from November 2010, so it's currently about right, and the increase is not necessary.

A litre of petrol gives off about 0.0025 tonnes of CO2 (2.5kg), and so should be taxed between 2.5 cents and 20 cents -- UK fuel duties are a lot more than this, so drivers are more than covering their climate change costs.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-12-11 06:53 pm (UTC)
ext_15862: (Save the Earth)
From: [identity profile] watervole.livejournal.com
I disagree with you about the revenues. First off, I doubt that the governments of the countries causing the pollution will give an apropriate sum of money to those in poorer countries who are also affected by it.

Secondly, we're going to be hitting positive feedback mechanisms on the climate - if we don't do something about them, then the long-term prospect is very bleak indeed.

I believe climate change is a social problem and the most pressing one we face. We ignore it at our peril (certainly our children's peril).

In the long term, climate change has the potential to dwarf our other problems - or rather to make the existing problems massively worse.

Just to pick one at random - rising sea temperatures are causing coral bleaching. Millions of third-world people depend on coral reefs for their livelihood. Do we just throw endless food aid at them when the fish run out? Or do we find a way to preserve the reefs and let them feed themselves.

December 2016

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526 2728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags