thinking beyond Copenhagen
We've all seen the graphs and are aware of the expected impacts, the so-called inconvenient truths. In case you need reminding, the following graphics from Seed magazine are worthwhile:
Now that most of the key players have come to accept the existence of climate change, serious talks about addressing it can finally begin. All eyes will be on Copenhagen in December in the hopes that delegates from all around the world will cooperate and deliver an accord with meaningful targets. An overdue step in the right direction on the international stage. Then what?
The goal is to effectuate a change in behaviour at the societal level because, evidently, awareness of the inconvenient truths is not enough. The long line-up of idling cars and SUVs I noticed in front of a school while I was walking Elaine's dog yesterday afternoon is just one exhibit.
Once targets are established, governments have a limited array of tools to choose from in order to ensure that emissions are reduced appropriately. Regulations. Incentives. Cap and trade. Taxes. Although probably the most difficult to implement, a tax on carbon is likely to be the most effective. Using the case of idling, here's why:
Scenario 1: Regulation
Idling is illegal and all those caught idling will be fined.
The main issue here is enforcement. Enforcement is expensive and patchy. Case in point: speeding. One would have a difficult time defending the claim that the illegality of speeding is such that it never occurs. And, to make matters worse, carbon emitting behaviour is much harder to define and observe than speeding.
Scenario 2: Incentives
Idling is discouraged and those that purchase and install a devise that cuts power to the engine if the vehicle hasn't moved in over a minute will receive a tax rebate.
In this case, the onus is on the individual to go through the hassle of purchasing and installing the devise. And keeping track of the receipts. And completing the requisite forms (there are always forms). And most people can't be bothered.
Scenario 3: Cap and Trade
Each individual is permitted to emit 600 pounds of CO2 (about half the average) per year from passenger vehicle use. Those that emit more than 600 pounds will need to purchase a sufficient number of emission credits from those that emit less (perhaps by idling less) at the specified rate.
As illustrated in this scenario, cap and trade is really not always feasible at smaller scales. Personal carbon trading has been proposed but, due to obvious logistical barriers, cap and trade mechanisms are typically applied to industrial or national contexts.
Scenario 4: Carbon Tax
A carbon tax is imposed on fuel and gas is more expensive. Individuals can idle, but doing so will be associated with a higher cost.
Assuming that the tax rate specified is appropriate, taxes are a good way of internalizing externalities in a way that induces people to change behaviour. Generally, higher prices will motivate people to rethink their activities and make choices that reduce usage of expensive commodities - like not idling. [1] Taxes also generate revenues so that other taxes, like taxes on income, can be reduced (revenue neutral taxation) or the additional taxes collected can be used to fund other emission reduction initiatives.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Today is blog action day and the theme is climate change. The goal of my post is to serves as a reminder that action to address climate change extends beyond targets set by delegates at large international meetings. If targets are set, governments will need to implement policies to meet them and it is likely that a tax is the best option. Please don't fight it. Support it.
If you think that your country is doing the right thing by participating in setting emission targets and pledging to meet them, you should also support politicians and parties that take the next, difficult step of designing and implementing a carbon tax.
[1] Some have argued that a carbon tax isn't fair for individuals living in remote communities where personal use of gas is considered unavoidable due to the lack of other options for transportation, but the argument exists that living in remote places is a choice that might need to be rethought if fuel prices are high.
