|
Secretaris-Generaal VN
Geregistreerd: 18 mei 2005
Locatie: Limburg
Berichten: 50.224
|
Alle subsidies afschaffen, luchtvervuiling schuld aan ~6,5 miljoen doden per jaar
Indien men - op basis van talrijke studies - de gezondheidsschade van fossiele brandstoffen echt zou doorrekenen, kan men zich terecht afvragen waarom fossiele brandstoffen nog altijd zwaar gesubsidieerd worden.
Ook in de zogezegd moderne landen, die luchtkwaliteits-wetten uitvaardigen en grensnormen A-Z vastleggen, maar die in de praktijk het papier niet waard zijn, omdat ze dikwijls overschreden worden, en ook de metingen allesbehalve correct zijn, of zelfs niet gemeten (PM0,1 ultrafijnstof).
Terwijl energie uit hernieuwbare bronnen veel minder gesubsideerd worden.
De transitie naar hernieuwbare energie zou veel sneller gaan moesten die subsidies eerlijker verdeeld worden op basis van gezondheidsschade. CO2 kan daarvoor een basis zijn, maar blijkt mij toch totaal onvoldoende, we gaan richting 2020... het moet toch ondertussen mogelijk zijn tot een consensus te komen dat de vervuiler, en deze keer de giftige vervuilende stoffen -en niet enkel CO2- eerlijker te taxeren.
Of andersom: diegene die omschakelt naar hernieuwbare energie meer te belonen. Of wacht... de subsidies op gezondheidschadende fossiele energie zijn veel hoger dan op hernieuwbare...
Dan is het nog beter: alle subsidies afschaffen, wat denken jullie?
(de press release van The Lancet mag men overslaan, het is de zoveelste studie na WHO en andere...)
Press release uit The Lancet:
Citaat:
http://gahp.net/press-release-lancet...lution-health/
Press Release: The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health
Oct 19, 2017
The Lancet: Pollution linked to nine million deaths worldwide in 2015, equivalent to one in six deaths
**Country-level data and video available**
Air pollution is the biggest contributor, linked to 6.5 million deaths in 2015, while water pollution (1.8 million deaths) and workplace-related pollution (0.8 million deaths) pose the next largest risks.
Almost all pollution-related deaths (92%) occur in low- and middle-income countries, and in rapidly industrialising countries (such as India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Madagascar and Kenya), deaths due to pollution can account for up to one in four deaths.
Welfare losses due to pollution are estimated to cost more than US$4.6 trillion each year, equivalent to 6.2% of global economic output.
With many emerging chemical pollutants still to be identified, these figures are likely to underestimate the true burden of pollution-related disease and death.
Pollution is linked to an estimated nine million deaths each year worldwide – equivalent to one in six (16%) of all deaths, according to a major new report inThe Lancet. Most of these deaths are due to non-communicable diseases caused by pollution such as heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
The report finds that pollution as a result of outdoor and indoor air pollution, water and soil contamination, and chemical pollutants is one of the largest risk factors for premature death. With almost all of these deaths (92%) occurring in low- and middle-income countries, and pollution disproportionately affecting the poor and marginalised in every country worldwide, the authors of the report aim to end neglect of the issue across the political spectrum, and mobilise the will, resources, and the leadership needed to confront it.
The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health is a two-year project that has involved more than 40 international health and environmental authors. Using data from the Global Burden of Disease study, it brings together comprehensive estimates on the effects of pollution on health, provides economic costs, and reveals the extent of contaminated sites across the world for the first time.
“Pollution is much more than an environmental challenge – it is a profound and pervasive threat that affects many aspects of human health and wellbeing. It deserves the full attention of international leaders, civil society, health professionals, and people around the world,” says Commission co-lead, Professor Philip Landrigan, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA. “Despite its far-reaching effects on health, the economy and the environment, pollution has been neglected in the international assistance and the global health agendas, and some control strategies have been deeply underfunded. Our goal is to raise global awareness of the importance of pollution, and mobilise the political will needed to tackle it, by providing the most in-depth estimates of pollution and health available.” [1]
Global health burden of pollution
The study found that the largest contributor to pollution-related deaths is air pollution (including ambient air pollution which is outdoor air pollution comprised of gases and particulate matter; and household air pollution that results from the burning of wood, charcoal, coal, dung, or crop wastes indoors; and ambient ozone), linked to an estimated 6.5 million deaths in 2015 as a result of diseases such as heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, and COPD.
The next largest risk factor was water pollution such as unsafe sanitation and polluted water sources, which are linked to 1.8 million deaths as a result of gastrointestinal diseases and parasitic infections.
Workplace pollution including exposure to toxins and carcinogens was linked to 0.8 million deaths from diseases such as such pneumoconiosis in coal workers, bladder cancer in dye workers, and asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other cancers in workers exposed to asbestos.
Finally, lead pollution was linked to 0.5 million deaths that resulted from high blood pressure, renal failure, and cardiovascular disease caused by lead in adults. Additional health effects caused by other forms of soil pollution (such as other heavy metals or chemicals) are not adequately researched, and so are not included in the study.
With many more chemical pollutants still to be identified and studied, the authors note that their figures are likely to underestimate the full health effects of pollution.
While almost all (92%) pollution-related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, the greatest impacts occur in countries that are currently undergoing rapid development and industrialisation – with pollution responsible for up to one in four deaths in the most severely affected countries (such as in India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh, Madagascar and Kenya – full country-level data available at end of press release).
In 2015, the greatest numbers of deaths due to pollution occurred in India (2.5 million deaths) and China (1.8 million).
As countries develop and industrialise, the type of pollution and the related health problems they face change. For example, water pollution and household air pollution are more common in early stages of industrial development, causing higher rates of pneumonia and diarrhoeal diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Deaths associated with water and household air pollution have reduced from 5.9 million deaths in 1990 to 4.2 million in 2015.
However, types of pollution associated with industrial development, such as ambient air pollution (including ozone), chemical, occupational pollution and soil pollution, have increased from 4.3 million (9.2%) in 1990 to 5.5 million (10.2%) in 2015 as countries reach higher levels of development.
Despite this, the authors argue that pollution is not the inevitable consequence of economic development, and applying similar legislation and regulation from high-income countries to low- and middle-income countries could help to improve and protect health as countries develop.
Economic costs of pollution
The costs of pollution-related death and disease are also highly concentrated in developing regions imposing vast costs on national budgets – equivalent to around 1.3% GDP in low-income countries, compared to around 0.5% GDP in high-income countries, and 0.13% GDP globally. Healthcare spending on pollution-related diseases also disproportionately affects lower income countries – accounting for an estimated 7% of health spending in middle-income countries each year, and 1.7% annual spend in high-income countries.
Welfare losses due to deaths and disease from pollution equate to US$4.6 trillion each year (equivalent to 6.2% of global economic output). Proportionately, low-income countries pay 8.3% of their gross national income to pollution-related death and disease, while high-income countries pay 4.5%.
As the report does not include costs related to the environmental damage inflicted by pollution, the authors note that these are not the full costs of pollution.
Pollution and justice
The effects of pollution disproportionately affect the poor and marginalised in countries at every level of income as they are more often exposed to toxic chemicals via contaminated air and water, unsafe workplaces, and other pollution-generating sources within close proximity to their homes. The authors argue that environmental injustice often violates these people’s human rights and cite global examples – ranging from Roma people being placed in refugee camps in an area polluted by toxic remains from a lead mine in Kosovo, to higher levels of ambient air pollution in disadvantaged areas of New York due to high numbers of local bus depots.
“Pollution, poverty, poor health, and social injustice are deeply intertwined. Pollution and related diseases most often affect the world’s poor and powerless, and victims are often the vulnerable and the voiceless. As a result, pollution threatens fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, health, wellbeing, safe work, as well as protections of children and the most vulnerable.” Says Commission author Karti Sandilya, Pure Earth, USA. [1]
“In order to tackle pollution, we must prioritise it as an issue that affects us all, integrating it into health planning, and increasing funding to allow more research into pollution, such as monitoring pollution and its effects, and developing ways to control pollution,” says Commission co-lead, Richard Fuller, Pure Earth, USA. “Pollution can be eliminated, and pollution prevention can be highly cost-effective – helping to improve health and extend lifespan, while boosting the economy. This has been seen in high-income and some middle-income countries where legislation has helped to curb the most flagrant forms of pollution, and has led to cleaner air and water, lower blood lead concentrations, removal of hazardous waste sites, and less polluted and more liveable cities.” [1]
Writing in a linked Comment, Dr Pamela Das, Senior Executive Editor, and Dr Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet say: “As the report shows, no country is unaffected by pollution. Human activities, including industrialisation, urbanisation, and globalisation, are all drivers of pollution… We hope that the findings and recommendations from this Lancet Commission will also marshal action in the health and development sectors, and persuade leaders at the national, state, provincial, and city levels to make pollution a priority. Although there is some activity on pollution internationally, much more is needed… This Lancet Commission should inform policy makers and serve as a timely call to action. Pollution is a winnable battle.”
NOTES TO EDITORS
The Commission was funded by European Union, UN Industrial Development Organization, the Swedish Ministry of Environment and Energy, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, Royal Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services, the US Agency for International Development, the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and Pure Earth.
|
pdf: http://www.thelancet.com/commissions...ion-and-health
Electrek.co gebruikte deze zoveelste studie om nog maar eens een lang artikel te schrijven, o.a. ook Tesla of E. Musk heeft in het verleden al gevraagd de subsidies allemaal af te schaffen zodat de transitie snller zou gaan. Uiteraard is het vuil lobbywerk nog altijd machtig... (Olie en Farma en ...)
Soit Electrek.co kan "subsidies en externe kosten" zoveel beter verwoorden..., er werd namelijk in de USA al wat langer gedebatteerd over subsidies, en mogelijk ook om dat beetje subsidie van electrische voertuigen ($7500 Federal Tax Credit) te herzien, of was het om te verlengen? In de USA zou de fossiele industrie van ca. 5 miljard $ per jaar subsidies kunnen profiteren op basis van niet-aangerekende externe kosten (gezondheid enz...).
Ik smijt een stukje in de vertaler, of lees best onderaan zelf in het Engels:
( "gas" kan je best vertalen naar benzine-diesel voor Europese landen)
Citaat:
(...)De kosten van vervuiling
Wanneer mensen dingen doen die andere mensen beïnvloeden en die effecten direct en schadelijk zijn, maken we meestal een wet tegen hen, omdat het niet eerlijk is dat mensen andere mensen kunnen kwetsen. Wanneer die effecten indirect en schadelijk zijn, maken we vaak nog steeds wetten of regels tegen hen (zoals je HOA veronderstellen dat je je gazon er mooi uit moet laten zien, want als je dat niet doet, dan dalen de waarden van je huis voor je hele straat). En wanneer die effecten indirect, schadelijk en niet-geverifieerd zijn, noemen we ze 'onbeschikte externaliteiten'.
In de economie is een "onvoorziene externaliteit" elke kost die niet door de producent of consument wordt betaald van een goed, maar in plaats daarvan wordt gedragen door de algemene bevolking. Dit is een vorm van subsidie - het is geen directe contante betaling van de overheid aan een industrie, maar het is een manier waarop industrieën kosten kunnen vermijden, wat sowieso net zo goed is als contante betaling, omdat ze hoe dan ook geld besparen.
Aan vervuiling zijn kosten verbonden, en die kosten worden niet betaald door vervuilers - ze profiteren van "niet-gerealiseerde externaliteiten" en de rest van ons betaalt de kosten. Dit zijn werkelijke kosten, geen toekomstige kosten, geen theoretische kosten, maar werkelijke kosten die nu worden betaald. Het meest voor de hand liggende zijn gezondheidskosten. Dit zijn economische kosten omdat ze hogere directe kosten voor medische zorg vereisen om aandoeningen te behandelen die niet zouden bestaan als er geen vervuiling was, maar er zijn ook niet-economische kosten in termen van kwaliteit van leven. Ik weet zeker dat de meesten van ons liever een cheque willen ondertekenen met onze portemonnee dan met onze longen.
Daarnaast zijn er indirecte economische kosten verbonden aan een slechte gezondheid door vervuiling, inclusief productiviteitsverlies voor werknemers die vanwege gezondheidsproblemen tijd moeten nemen of die daardoor minder goed kunnen werken. En natuurlijk is er de dood.
De Lancet schatte onlangs dat jaarlijks 9 miljoen mensen sterven als gevolg van vervuiling - 6,5 miljoen van deze sterfgevallen zijn te wijten aan luchtvervuiling. Dit aantal vertegenwoordigt 16%, een zesde, van alle wereldwijde sterfgevallen - drie keer meer dan aids, tuberculose en malaria gecombineerd, of vijftien keer meer dan oorlog en alle vormen van geweld. De Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie (WHO) schat ook dat ongeveer 6,5 miljoen mensen per jaar sterven aan luchtvervuiling.
De totale globale kosten in verband met deze vervuiling komen overeen met $ 4,6 biljoen per jaar volgens de Lancet-studie. IMF-beleidsmakers hebben onlangs een studie gepubliceerd met hun eigen schattingen van deze kosten, waarbij de totale wereldwijde subsidies voor vuile energie aan $ 5.3 biljoen per jaar werden gekoppeld.
De VS, die ongeveer 15% van de emissies in de wereld produceren, zijn daarom verantwoordelijk voor ongeveer $ 750 miljard van die wereldwijde kosten per jaar - hoewel het IMF-onderzoek het aandeel van de VS op $ 600 miljard schat, dus laten we dat aantal gebruiken. Ongeveer een derde van de uitstoot in de VS komt uit transport, waarbij transport onlangs elektriciteitsopwekking voorbijstreeft als de meest uitgestoten economische sector, en meer dan de helft van dat derde komt van lichte persoonlijke voertuigen.
Dus benzine-diesel alleen voor persoonlijke voertuigen (vrachtwagens, vliegtuigen, schepen, enz. niet meegerekend) wordt in de VS gesubsidieerd voor ~ 100 miljard dollar per jaar. Vorig jaar, met 159.000 EV's die over het hele land werden verkocht, kostte de EV belastingkrediet de VS ongeveer $ 1,2 miljard dollar. Als u op zoek bent naar een kostenbesparing, moet eerst worden gekeken naar die welke ~ 100 keer groter is.
Subsidies vergeleken: gas versus elektrisch
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, wiens bedrijf meer heeft geprofiteerd van de EV belastingkredieten, heeft lang gevraagd om alle subsidies voor zowel vuile als schone energie, inclusief zijn eigen bedrijven, te beëindigen. Hij is van mening dat als ze zouden stoppen, zijn producten feitelijk competitiever zouden zijn dan minder concurrerend.
Een Tesla Model S profiteert wel van $ 7.500 aan subsidie op de aankoopprijs (ervan uitgaande dat de koper voldoende belastingplichtig is om het te claimen), maar concurrerende gasauto's profiteren van een subsidie van $ 3,80 per gallon benzine die volgens één onderzoek is verbrand, zodanig dat een gemiddelde auto kan kosten van $ 1.700 per jaar negeren.
Of, overweeg een concurrerende auto, een nieuwe Mercedes S-Klasse, en neem aan dat hij 20 mijl per gallon krijgt en 150.000 mijl rijdt tijdens zijn nuttige levensduur. Voor $ 3,80 per gallon, zal die Mercedes gedurende de hele levensduur van $ 28,500 aan subsidie genieten - veel meer dan de Model S zal doen. Dit is geen directe cashback voor de Mercedes, maar aan de andere kant is het federale EV-belastingkrediet evenmin.
Maar hoewel gas het grootste voordeel krijgt van die niet-geprijsde externe effecten, is elektrisch rijden nog steeds overal goedkoper in de VS (en hier is nog een studie die hetzelfde zegt voor andere regio's).
Oplossingen
De oplossing is om een preventieve prijs toe te voegen aan vervuiling, zodat het dezelfde hoeveelheid vervuilt als voor het opruimen van die vervuiling.
Stel u voor dat uw stad jaarlijks een gespecificeerde kostprijs zou hebben voor het ophalen van gemeentelijke vuilnis, ongeveer gelijk aan de kosten van het runnen van vrachtwagens, het betalen van werknemers, het beheren van stortplaatsen en recyclingcentra, enz. Stel u nu voor dat u besliste dat u deze kosten niet wilde betalen en zou gewoon beginnen met het gooien van je afval in het midden van de straat en laat iedereen het opruimen voor jou. Zou dit schandalig zijn? Zouden je buren boos worden? Zou je boos worden als je buren het deden?
Vanaf nu is dit wat er gebeurt met vervuiling. Vervuilers mogen hun afval in de gemeenschappelijke ruimtes verspreiden en worden zelden verantwoordelijk gehouden voor de schade of de kosten van opruimen, en die kosten worden uiteindelijk door de anderen betaald. Het schendt een eenvoudige regel die we allemaal nog voor de kleuterschool leren: als je een puinhoop maakt, moet je het opruimen. Dus laten we dit oplossen door vervuilers op te ruimen, of op zijn minst te betalen om het op te ruimen.
Deze oplossing is door velen voorgesteld, waaronder vrijwel elke econoom. Met name heeft een coalitie van conservatieve beroemdheden onlangs het conservatieve argument voorgesteld voor het vaststellen van prijsvervuiling in zowel een beleidsvoorstel als verschillende opinies.
Deze groep omvatte George Shultz en Jim Baker, voormalige staatssecretarissen onder Reagan en Bush Sr .; Hank Paulson, voormalig minister van Financiën onder Bush Jr. en ex-CEO van Goldman Sachs; en conservatieve econoom Greg Mankiw (gerelateerd: zie George Shultz praten over zijn door zonne-energie aangedreven Nissan Leaf in een korte video uit 2012, inclusief deze leuke quote - "Ik rij op zon ... neem dat, Ahmadinejad").
|
Citaat:
https://electrek.co/2017/12/02/hey-g...bon-price-too/
Hey GOP: You passed your tax hike. Now pass your carbon price too.
Jameson Dow - Dec. 2nd
Last night, voting in the dead of night, offering little opportunity for bipartisan discussion and despite the public opposing the plan by nearly a 2:1 margin, the Republican party passed their bill which raises taxes on the middle class and will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit through the US Senate, paving the way for the bill to become law.
Despite initial confusion, the version of the bill passed in the Senate looks like it does keep the $7,500 EV credit intact. Originally we weren’t sure whether the version passed did maintain the credit, given that the 479-page bill was revealed just hours before the vote, and it’s full of illegible scribbles in the margins. But the House version of the bill eliminates the credit, and either version could prevail as the differences are worked out between the two (call your representative if you have thoughts on that).
https://electrek.co/2017/11/09/elect...-says-senator/
What the bill certainly does keep intact, though, is the US’ portion of the massive ~$5 trillion yearly global subsidy which fossil fuels benefit from in the form of unpriced externalities. There’s a solution to this, and this solution has even been proposed by many high-profile Republicans.
The costs of pollution
When people do things that affect other people, and those effects are direct and deleterious, we typically make a law against them, because it’s not fair for people to be able to hurt other people. When those effects are indirect and deleterious, we often still make laws or rules against them (like imagine your HOA requiring you to keep your lawn looking nice because if you don’t then property values go down for your whole street). And when those effects are indirect, deleterious, and unaccounted for, we call them “unpriced externalities.”
In economics, an “unpriced externality” is any cost which is not paid by the producer or consumer of a good, but instead incurred by the general population. This is a form of subsidy – it’s not a direct cash payment from the government to an industry, but it is a way that industries can avoid costs, which is just as good as a cash payment anyway because either way they are saving money.
Pollution has costs attached to it, and those costs are not being paid by polluters – they are benefitting from “unpriced externalities” and the rest of us are paying the cost. These are real costs, not future costs, not theoretical costs, but actual costs being paid right now. The most obvious are health costs. These are economic costs because they require higher direct costs for medical care to treat conditions which would not exist were it not for pollution, but there are also non-economic costs in terms of quality of life. I’m sure most of us would rather sign a check with our pocketbook than with our lungs.
In addition to that, there are indirect economic costs associated with poor health from pollution, including loss of productivity for workers who must take time off due to health problems or whose capacity for work is diminished as a result. And, of course, there is death.
The Lancet recently estimated that 9 million people die each year around the world due to pollution – 6.5 million of these deaths are attributable to air pollution. This number represents 16%, one-sixth, of all global deaths – three times more than AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined, or fifteen times more than war and all forms of violence. The World Health Organization (WHO) also estimates that about 6.5 million die worldwide per year from air pollution.
The total global costs associated with this pollution tally up to $4.6 trillion per year according to the Lancet study. IMF policy heads released a study with their own estimates of these costs recently, pegging total global dirty energy subsidies at $5.3 trillion per year.
The US, which produces about 15% of the world’s emissions, is therefore responsible for about $750 billion of those global costs every year – though the IMF study estimates the US’ share at $600 billion, so let’s use that number. About a third of the US’ emissions come from transportation, with transportation recently overtaking electricity generation as the highest-emitting economic sector, and more than half of that third comes from light-duty personal vehicles.
So just gasoline for personal vehicles alone (not counting trucks, airplanes, ships, etc.) is being subsidized to the tune of ~$100 billion per year in the US. Last year, with 159,000 EVs sold countrywide, the EV tax credit cost the US about $1.2 billion dollars. If you’re looking for a cost to cut, perhaps the one which is ~100 times larger should be looked at first.
Subsidies compared: gas vs. electric
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose company has benefitted more than any other from the EV tax credit, has asked for a long time that all subsidies be ended for dirty and clean energy alike, including his own companies. He figures that if they did end, his products would actually be more competitive rather than less competitive.
A Tesla Model S does benefit from $7,500 in subsidy on the purchase price (assuming the buyer has enough tax liability to claim it), but competing gas cars benefit from a subsidy of $3.80 per gallon of gasoline burned according to one study, such that an average car gets to ignore costs of ~$1,700 per year.
Or, consider a competing car, a new Mercedes S-Class, and assume it gets 20 miles per gallon and will drive 150,000 miles over the course of its useful lifetime. At $3.80 per gallon, that Mercedes will benefit from $28,500 worth of subsidy over its lifetime – far more than the Model S will. This is not direct cash back for the Mercedes, but then again, neither is the federal EV tax credit.
But even though gas gets the greater benefit of those unpriced externalities, driving electric is still cheaper everywhere in the US (and here’s another study which says the same for other regions as well).
Solutions
The solution is to add an upfront price to pollution, so that it costs the same amount to pollute as it does to clean up that pollution.
Imagine if your city had an itemized yearly cost for municipal trash pickup, roughly equivalent to the cost of running the trucks, paying workers, operating dumps and recycling centers, etc. Now imagine if you decided that you didn’t want to pay this cost and would just start throwing your trash in the middle of the street and let everyone else clean it up for you. Would this be outrageous? Would your neighbors get mad? Would you get mad if your neighbors did it?
As of right now, this is what’s happening with pollution. Polluters are allowed to spew their trash into common areas and are rarely held accountable for the damage done or the costs of cleanup, and those costs end up being paid by everyone else. It violates a simple rule we all learn even before kindergarten: if you make a mess, you should clean it up. So let’s solve this by making polluters clean it up, or at least pay to clean it up.
This solution has been proposed by many, including just about every economist. Notably, a coalition of conservative luminaries recently proposed the conservative case for pricing pollution in both a policy proposal and several op-eds.
This group included George Shultz and Jim Baker, former Secretaries of State under Reagan and Bush Sr.; Hank Paulson, former Secretary of the Treasury under Bush Jr. and ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs; and conservative economist Greg Mankiw (related: see George Shultz talk about his solar-powered Nissan Leaf in a short video from 2012, including this entertaining quote – “I’m driving on sunshine…take that, Ahmadinejad“).
Adding an upfront price to pollution would reduce the distortive effect which unpriced externalities have on the market, and make the free market able to work better at balancing supply, demand, and real costs of production and consumption of goods. We need accurate price signals for the market to work properly.
This would increase the cost of consumer goods, but it would also result in lower comparative costs for goods which are cleaner, and higher costs for goods which are dirtier, and thus there would be an economic incentive to be cleaner. Those costs are already being paid by consumers, but right now they are being obfuscated, paid on the backend in the form of higher medical bills and early death largely at expense of the national and global poor, which seems like a greater burden than having to pay an extra 50 cents for your hamburger.
These costs will affect consumers and quite probably will affect poorer consumers more than richer ones (even though higher income brackets tend to produce higher emissions). There are various proposals for mitigating these consumer costs, including returning part or all of the revenue collected as a dividend, or offering targeted assistance or rebates to low-income people who might be affected. If all of the revenue was returned as a dividend, this proposal would even be “revenue-neutral,” which is to say it would not add a penny to the deficit (unlike the Republicans’ plan which manages to put $1.5 trillion on the nation’s credit card even while hiking taxes on middle-income Americans).
There are also various proposals for how to set the price of pollution. Many proposals start with a lower price now, and then have a plan for the price to increase over time (such as $40/ton now, increasing by $10/ton per year), so that businesses and consumers can transition slowly to cleaner goods, and can have time to implement strategies to clean up their operations.
Some proposals base the price on the current cost of damage being done, some take into account future damages to the climate, and unfortunately very few seem to account for the more-than-a-century worth of free ride that the richest companies in the world have gotten (5 of the world’s 10 largest companies by revenue derive most of their revenues from fossil fuels, with two more being auto manufacturers which greatly benefit from ignored costs of pollution).
But many of these proposals are rigid and don’t respond to technological changes, and rely on estimates of the cost of pollution which do vary depending on what you take into account. A simpler solution would be to peg the cost of pollution to the cost of cleanup – whatever it costs to return the atmosphere back to the state it was in before the pollution got there, that’s how much it should cost to put the pollution there in the first place.
In 2011, the best direct carbon capture technology available cost $600/ton, and there hasn’t been a ton of development since then. This means that it costs about $6 to remove the carbon produced by burning one gallon of gasoline from the atmosphere. That’s steep, but, again, it really is fair to expect that people should clean up after themselves.
The reason that price is high is because there’s little economic incentive to develop technologies for direct carbon capture since we don’t currently have a price on pollution. There are researchers and small companies doing interesting things, like this company which turns carbon dioxide into stone, but without that economic incentive, it’s hard to convince anyone with control over a balance sheet that they should get into the game. A few other companies think the cost of direct capture could be lowered to $100 or even $50 per ton, but since polluters can currently pollute with little consequence, there’s not a lot of economic reason to bother.
Pegging the price of pollution to the price of cleanup would change that – not only would it incentivize companies to get in the game so they can derive revenue from the cleanup effort, it would also incentivize current polluters to develop capture or mitigation technologies so that they can reduce costs and reduce disruption of their business. It also gets rid of the messy and contentious business of estimating damages. If you make a mess, clean up the mess you made. Simple enough.
So let’s do that. As long as we’re on a quest to end subsidies, why stop at ending the small subsidy to EVs, and end the gigantic subsidy to dirty energy as well. The concept has bipartisan support, the support of nearly every economic and environmental professional, and will benefit everyone who happens to live in the environment, breathe air, drink water, benefit from functioning ecosystems, etc. – which is to say, all of us. It’s time that polluters take responsibility for their mess, and pay to clean it up.
The EV tax credit can still go either way as the differences are worked out between the House and Senate bill. If you have strong feelings on this, you can call the US capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and they will be able to connect you to your representatives’ offices, where you can tell them how you feel about this tax plan. And feel free to suggest they start pricing pollution, as detailed above.
|
Laatst gewijzigd door Micele : 4 december 2017 om 11:37.
|
4 december 2017, 11:11
