The argument for the carbon tax has been always discussed in economic terms, everywhere.
Whether in the UN climate negotiations, or in the European Parliament and the UK house of Parliament.
But especially so and rather vehemently, in both China and the US has been a rather partisan Economic issue.
Even old England produced the fat and serious Stern report which is still a simplistic Econometrics document.
Now we have the Stieglitz report that President Sarkozy used to justify his Carbon Tax in France.
All that is well and Good but we have been misguided by our blind faith in the Economists.
Those dismal scientists who have taken us down the Garden path before…
and sold us sweet nothings.
Time to turn the leaf on those glorious accountants.
The Obama administration framed its argument for Cap and Trade and Cap and Dividend and now that the Senate will be voting for the American Power Act, it’s all framed in terms of economic costs and benefits.
The same has transpired in the Chinese Administration’s discussions of the Carbon costs and the Carbon tax, as of lately.
Yet instead of a simple and dry Economics discourse; the issue of global warming must be discussed in moral terms.
Placing it in moral terms should also be the guiding issue for all international discussions.
Future agreements, accords and multinational deals for the Environment should be following the Precautionary principle and the Moral Hazard.
To stop regarding the Atmosphere as an open sewer is simply morally right.
To set a limit to what we emit is proper and correct morally.
To fine the polluters and the large CO2 emitters, is the Right thing to do.
Simple as that…
The Christian or Confucian or Muslim or Buddhist or Dialectic materialism and even Market place morality of it, is a bit more complex but still fairly easy to understand and share with others.
We are the ones polluting the Atmosphere. It’s not the freaking Aliens doing it to us… with their UFOs.
It’s our SUVs and our Coal Energy factories producing electricity to power up our Lives and wasting 93% of it in the process.
And now we propose to do nothing serious about it.
Where is the change in that?
Where is the Leadership?
In the event that nobody emerges as a Leader to do something about the CO2 pollution of the Atmosphere and the resultant global warming – the climate of the earth is likely to change drastically – with severe harm to the present and the future generations.
Carbon emissions are the cause of this global warming. Therefore it is immoral for any country, any industrial entity, or any person to contribute more than their minimum fair share to this health hazard.
It is like stealing. Though shall not steal…
Who says that we have the right to pollute?
By adding more carbon to the atmosphere than our fair share, we are taking more than what rightfully belongs to us.
None of us should feel entitled to that any more than we would feel entitled to steal our neighbor’s home and deprive their family.
Whether or not we should do that is not a question of costs and benefits and even less should it be a question of our costs and our benefits.
It is a question of basic right and wrong.
Yours,
Pano
PS:
Further it is a question of basic self Interest.
For if we steal from our neighbor’s home, our family sooner than later will be a target of thieves, and we will be deprived of our livelihood.
Therefore, I would like to make a suggestion to the Chinese leadership.
In a Confucian methodology, the leading stance that they should take toward global warming is one of high morals.
I think that you should stop looking to the United States and Europe to take the leadership, before you take your own leading stance on global warming.
China is the rising economic star.
China is also the rising star on the stage of world leadership.
Start acting like it…
PS2:
A year ago this June, the US house of Representatives passed a Climate bill sponsored by Representatives Markey and Waxman, called American Clean Energy and Security Act. The Act would have placed economy wide caps on greenhouse gas emissions in the method of Cap and Trade.
This month, Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman offered an equivalent bill in the Senate. The American Power Act.
Obviously the US administration decided the best chance for passage of the bill, is with a stripped-down version that caps only emissions from power plants.
Now even that bill has fallen by the wayside…
The latest version of the American Power Act is not even a pale shadow of what is needed for the global Atmosphere.
The bill will include useful reforms related to the Gulf oil spill, and some land conservation and even energy efficiency provisions. But there is no cap on CO2 of any sort. And without that cap, the Energy industry will have little incentive to reduce emissions or invest in cleaner energy sources or new technologies.
The bill also fails to require Energy and Electrical utilities, to derive a significant percentage of their power from renewable sources.
Therefore the opportunity for US leadership has been squarely squandered.
PS3:
The field is wide open for a Chinese Goal…
