Opinion round-up
Here’s a round-up of some recent opinion-pieces on carbon emissions, green taxes and related topics:
- Tim Harford in the FT puts an economist’s view of green taxes:
“If we really cared about the planet we would recognise that CO2 is CO2. It does not matter where it comes from: it is all harmful.
This is where economists seem to part company with knee-jerk environmentalists, including Mr Livingstone [Mayor of London]. For an economist, the whole point of a green tax is that while we know what we want – lower carbon emissions, fewer accidents, less congestion – we do not know the best way to get there. We cannot afford to stop all pollution: remember that we produce CO2 simply by breathing. The aim is to stop the low-priority activities and not the high-value ones. And the judge of what is really important should be each individual, not a posturing politician. The green tax should send the same signal to each individual. They can decide for themselves whether or not those shooting and fishing weekends are worth the price.”
- Fiona Harvey in the FT reports on efforts by companies, such as BSkyB, to make their operations carbon-neutral.
“For a company to be “carbon-neutral”, its output of carbon dioxide – usually generated through its energy usage, although some manufacturing processes also produce greenhouse gases – must be reduced, and the remaining greenhouse gas emissions “offset”. Offsetting means investing in projects that reduce emissions outside the company.
Companies wishing to achieve carbon neutrality must first examine their energy use. Reducing energy use should be a key aim for companies in any case in these times of high electricity bills but, for most, it falls low on the agenda.
. . .
The major cost in going carbon-neutral is offsetting emissions, since reducing energy usage saves money, and switching to a green supply should cost nothing.”
- The Economist explains the business of carbon off-setting and also argues in an editorial that the theory is still better than the practice.
“Despite such flaws, however, the idea of carbon offsets is a good one. Establishing markets in which carbon emissions can be traded and offset is a good idea, since market forces then provide financial incentives for people to find the cheapest ways to reduce or eliminate emissions. The lack of standards is also being addressed. Various bodies are creating standards and inspection regimes that will allow buyers of carbon offsets to feel confident that they really are getting what they pay for. And many firms are embracing voluntary offsetting now in the expectation that compulsory carbon trading will soon be imposed upon them anyway.
Yet as the nascent carbon-offsetting industry starts to take shape, a new problem is emerging. Some of the non-governmental organisations that are drawing up carbon-offset standards require emissions to be cut in particular ways: after due consultation with local people, for example, or using particular favoured technologies. Such considerations are irrelevant: the only thing that should matter in offset schemes is that emissions should be cut. Politicising offsets risks discrediting an approach that deserves to be taken seriously. And that really would be a sin.”