Centerblue.org

For a while now I’ve considered myself rather libertarian where it comes to regulation of the marketplace–that is, the view that what’s “best” should be determined by the market forces of supply and demand. When something “bad” or “expensive” is bandied about, inevitably someone else will offer a competing product that is cheaper, better, whatever…and solve the problem.

On the other hand I’ve also passionately advocated government regulation in certain other areas, most notably the environment and global warming. This non-libertarian view was a contradiction I intuitively embraced, but found hard to defend when debating libertarian principles. An article in today’s New York Times (“The Cost of an Overheated Planet”) crystallized the issue for me and resolved the contradiction.

Market competition requires that alternatives carry a cost that can be compared against other alternatives in order to judge what is “best.” The problem with carbon emissions and global warming is that while the costs are very real over the long term in terms of land loss and desertification, decrease of agriculture, etc. they are not quantified or recognized by the market. Why not? Because spewing carbon dioxide into the air is absolutely free.

Because pollution is free and there is no incentive to account for future costs, there is also no incentive to do anything different. Free always beats an alternative of any cost whatsoever. Why should the market push for costly energy alternatives, increases in efficiency, and decreases in emissions when the alternative cost of doing nothing is nothing?

The market, then, is doing exactly what it’s supposed to–it is encouraging that which is “best” and least costly. Until that changes, there will be little headway in tackling carbon dioxide emissions. The failure here, then, is in a wrong value of $0 being put on the pollution alternative–it’s not a failure of the market itself or of libertarian principles.

The answer, then, is to make carbon emissions NOT free, so that the cost of polluting can then be compared against other alternatives in a fashion that takes into account the very real long-term costs posed by global warming. That’s where carbon taxes and carbon trading systems come in–they impose a penalty where none existed before, and depending on how punitive it is it may or may not encourage alternate technology and efficiency.

Under a carbon tax regime, you simply fine companies for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted. A $14 per ton tax would amount to about a 100% tax on coal, and a 12 cent tax per gallon of gasoline. It would generate $80 billion a year for the United States, which would ideally be put to fund research into “green” energy alternatives. The disadvantage of this approach is, unfortunately, the political repercussions of a flat-out tax increase.

Under a carbon trading/”cap and trade” system, an absolute limit on emissions is decreed, and all polluters are granted permits with accompanying carbon quotas. Companies able to operate at below quota can sell their excess carbon capacity to other companies who cannot. Since permits are the equivalent of cash, governments will gain support from those who stand to profit (i.e., low emitters) and doesn’t need to justify a tax increase. This system has also been used successfully in other scenarios such as reducing acid rain.

Under either system, polluting companies will suddenly have an incentive to invest in clean technology and energy efficiency so as to reduce the costs for pollution they are paying or being forced to pass on to consumers. Rather than being free, emitting carbon will bring with it the acknowledgment that a very real cost is being imposed on the marketplace as well as our environment.

I love it–a market-based policy that is environmentally friendly!

Even though Bush has his head stuck in the sand about global warming the same as he does about everything else, the incoming Democratic Congress along with the positions taken by both Republican and Democratic candidates for president in 2008 promise to lend new life to imposing a cost on carbon pollution. If you care about global warming and are wondering what to do about it, one great way to start is to make sure that whatever candidates you support are in favor of making sure the market deals fairly with carbon dioxide by imposing a cost on it that accounts for the damage being done to the Earth and future generations.

A comprehensive new study reports that if current trends of over-fishing and polluting the oceans continue, the ocean will essentially become devoid of most marine life by 2048. Our grandchildren may never know what seafood is (except maybe for jellyfish, which can probably survive in any condition).

I don’t know about anyone else, but leaving a huge, lifeless septic tank of an ocean system with jellyfish floating around is not the kind of legacy I’d enjoy leaving for humans for millions of years after such a catastrophe. There are, however, concrete steps that can be taken to stop this from happening: fertilizer runoff can be curtailed, fishing can be limited to sustainable levels, and so on.

Most importantly, we have to keep the pressure on our leaders to get off their lazy, fearful political asses and DO something about climate change and ecosystem collapse.

America will reach 300 million people either today or in the next couple of days. While this milestone denotes a nation of abundance and opportunity, it also bodes poorly for the increasing amounts of waste and gluttony that have become part and parcel of the American lifestyle.

The Independent lists some unfortunate statistics that quantify the American way of life, both for better and for worse:

300m: Expected population of the United States by the end of this week

75: Life expectancy for men in the US. Women are expected to live until 80

63: Life expectancy for men in the developing world. Women are expected to live until 67

395m: Projected population of the US by 2050

1,682m3: US annual water consumption per capita

633m3: The world’s annual water consumption per capita

545m3: The developing world’s annual water withdrawals per capita

5lbs: Amount of waste each US resident produces per day. That compares with about 3lbs per person per day in Europe, and about 0.9-1.3lbs per person a day in the developing world

$39,710: US Gross National Income per head, 2004

$8,540: World’s GNI per head

$4,450: Developing world’s GNI per head

19.8: US carbon dioxide emissions per capita, in metric tonnes

3.9: World’s carbon dioxide emissions per head, in tonnes

1.8: Developing world’s carbon dioxide emissions per head, in tonnes

58bn: Number of burgers consumed by Americans every year

54m: Number of Americans who are obese

300,000: Deaths per year related to obesity

678lbs: US annual paper consumption per head

115lbs: The corresponding figure for the world

44lbs: The figure for the developing world

204m: number of vehicles on US roads

37%: Percentage of the total cars in the world on America’s roads

1 in 7: Barrels of world oil supply used by US drivers

24m: Number of Americans who drive SUVs

7,921: US energy consumption per capita, 2001, expressed in kilograms of oil

1,631: World’s energy consumption per capita, in kilograms of oil

828: Corresponding figure for the developing world

The question is, is our way of life sustainable? Is it ethical or moral when compared to the rest of the world?

Lebanon, which had been making great strides in cleaning up and protecting its environment, is now becoming a toxic wasteland in the wake of Israel’s invasion. Over 15,000 tons of heavy fuel oil, almost half the size of the Exxon Valdez spill, have ruined over 50 miles of pristine coastline after spilling from a power plant hit by Israel. The slick threatens coastal wildlife and Lebanon’s entire fishing industry. Oil is being allowed to burn rather than having more of it fall into the ocean, causing massive amounts of air pollution as well.

Just when you thought the news about the environment couldn’t possibly get any worse, it does. The Los Angeles Times is beginning a five-part series today that focuses on the magnitude of destruction we are unleashing on our unseen but essential ocean habitats.

The first article in the multimedia series, “A Primeval Tide of Toxins,” talks about how humanity is quickly knocking the oceans back millions of years on the evolutionary scale. The problem is with the huge amounts of human sewage and fertilizer run-off from farms being dumped into the oceans every day. These substances essentially serve as nutrients for certain species of weeds, algae, and jellyfish that are quickly choking all life around them. They threaten many species, from fish to coral reefs, with imminent extinction as the latter are deprived of oxygen and food.

The statistics and photos in the article are sobering and heart-wrenching to me:

• 75% of kelp forests, prime habitat for many fish, have disappeared off the coast of California in the last 50 years.
• 650 grey whales have washed up sick or dead along the West Coast in the last 7 years.
• 97% of elkhorn and staghorn coral off the coast of Florida has died since 1975.
• 150 ocean-depleted “dead zones” have been identified around the world, including a huge one the size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico off the Louisiana and Florida coasts.
• 90% of the world’s stocks of tuna, cod, and other big fish have disappeared in the last 50 years.

One element in the story I found ironic is that some of the weeds that are now choking fishermen’s nets all over the world are extremely toxic to humans, even if you’re just splattered with water that contained the weeds. It is as if these life forms that are suddenly proliferating have somehow realized that humankind is really their worst natural enemy and have devised a suitable defense.

It doesn’t have to be that way, unless we cherish the idea of a planet with oceans full of nothing but slime for future generations and for millions of years.

This article not only describes how China’s increasing pollution is now reaching the US (which at times now accounts for 25% of Los Angeles’s pollution), but also summarizes the severity of China’s environmental problems. Excerpts:

• 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities are in China.
• China suffers 400,000 premature deaths each year due to pollution.
• China builds on average one new coal power plant every week.
• Car ownership in China is soaring 10% a year.
• China will exceed the US as the world’s largest emitter of global warming gases in the next decade.
• Chinese officials estimate overall pollution will quadruple in the next 15 years.

Faced with numbers like these, it is difficult not to be pessimistic about the inevitability of global warming and extreme environmental destruction. At least China is aggressively pursuing cutting energy use and increasing energy efficiency, but it will likely not be enough.