The Energy Debate: Fanboys, Fangirls, and the Real Cost of Pollution
When it comes to the debate between renewables and fossil fuels, almost everyone is a fanboy or fangirl.
Inevitably, comparisons of power density, EROI, or cost among energy sources turn into a sports competition, with enthusiasts passionately rooting for their preferred energy type. It is tempting to frame the debate as a Biblical contest of good versus evil, where the stakes are nothing less than the fate and future of humanity, wrapped in a veneer of reverence for the environment and the intricate web of life.
Objective and holistic analysis consistently reveals the limitations of renewables. Yet, the unwavering belief in the market and its gospel of growth propels us further down the path of creative destruction.
We have mistakenly left the responsibility of addressing climate change and environmental issues to the market. While markets excel at optimizing short-term profits, they have consistently failed to prioritize the well-being of humanity and the planet, as there is little profit to be made in these crucial areas.
The “all of the above” approach to decarbonization squanders natural resources and capital, allowing us to avoid the harder task of defining our core values. Carbon taxes and carbon trading systems have been implemented in various countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. While supporters of these programs cite some successes, global emissions and temperatures continue to rise (Figure 1).
Source: Our World in Data, Columbia University & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
The Polluter-Pays Principle (PPP) asserts that those responsible for pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent harm to human health and the environment. But who exactly are the polluters? Are they the fossil fuel and mining companies, the automobile manufacturers, the utilities generating electric power, or the global transport network of ships, trains, and trucks?
If we genuinely care about the planet, we must acknowledge that reclaiming what the market has taken away can only be achieved through imposing a carbon penalty on the end users of products that pollute the air, land, and water—you and me.
This would instantly quiet the roar of fanboys and fangirls in the stadiums of Earth.
Like Art's Work?
Share this Post:
Read More Posts
If I recall correctly from some interviews I’ve heard with you, when pressed for advice you say “use less energy”. This makes sense to me and I appreciate its simplicity – it’s something I can easily be mindful of and teach my kids. I am a novice in this area, just learning what I can, when I can. I’ve learned that energy use is linked to GDP (and likely to stay that way) and our system seems to optimise for growth in GDP. “a carbon penalty on the end users of products that pollute” will efficiently change an individual’s “use less energy” decision from being made with the intention of helping the planet, to saving money / one’s carbon quota. It makes sense to me, but I don’t see how our society can make a change like this while it maintains a focus on growth in GDP. At this point this is about as much as I can clearly hold in my head – I expect it is a lot more complicated than this!
Dylan,
Many thanks for your thoughtful comments. Any kind of carbon tax or penalty is politically remote but it is the simplest & fairest way to address the climate-change and ecological crises.
I am sometimes criticized for not offering “solutions.” I don’t offer them because human behavior is the problem, and it will block meaningful policy change. I included it in this post to give people something to think about. You have. You’ve recognized that this won’t happen and that’s my point.
We must direct our efforts toward coping with post-growth because de-growth simply won’t happen.
All the best,
Art
So many facets of this problem. Here in Canada, we have carbon taxes and the governments abuse the proceeds. Money is wasted on economically impractical “green” projects. The tax is also regressive. It has no effect on yacht owners who burn hundreds of gallons a day for recreation, or commuters who buy and drive huge, inefficient pickup trucks for transportation. There is also the international nature of the problem. China and India are ramping up their coal plants so they can generate electricity for their green electric vehicles. China is preparing to export their cars and coal plant technology to the global south.
I am in favour of the democratic west (including Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea etc) taking steps to conserve petroleum as much for the value we will leave to future generations as for the reduction of CO2. I would mandate the use of hybrid technology, impose a huge gas-guzzler tax on inefficient vehicles and vessels at the point of purchase, have a carbon tax administered by an independent body (KPMG or other respectable firm, outside the reach of greedy politicians) ban the government from selecting winners like BEVs, and accelerate the deployment of nuclear technology.
Additionally, Canada has ramped up immigration to an extreme level, reaching over 2% last year. Amongst other problems, you can believe that is a 2% per annum increase in the emission of CO2. Increasing world population is the number one problem facing the world. Focus on solving that problem.
At the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller Alberta there a countless exhibits of extinct dinosaurs with the caption “failed to adapt to climate change”
End of Rant.
Thanks, Ric.
The problem with Canada’s carbon pricing is that the tax is on the distributors and industries that are determined to create the pollution.
What I have suggested is completely different–a tax on the end user: you and me. That gives us the decision to use products and services with a lower tax because there is less pollution associated than other products and services.
If Canada didn’t equally tax all pollution, that’s a flaw in its plan, not a problem with the concept of Polluter-Pay.
All the best,
Art
Assuming reduction of CO2 is the one step the majority can agree on, the carbon tax seems the simplest (administratively) to implement and the most broad and efficient use of a Pigouvian tax. Collecting at at any point along the production/use chain is a simple task, with production point being the simplest. .This is already in place in most places. In the end the user/consumer pays it all anyway.
Easy to say, harder to get done, I know. But its got to be a whole lot more efficient and logical then massive and complicated tax credits and subsidies.
Your thoughts?
Timothy,
Thanks for your comments. I disagree that point-of-production is the right approach. First, we shouldn’t waste time blaming oil and mining companies because it’s infantile and will tie up the process in court for decades. Second, we need to make people fully understand the immediate effect of using polluting products so that they can make adjustments in their spending and behavior.
The administrative and bureaucratic aspects of a carbon tax are overwhelming and would never be resolved within the window of climate urgency. I’m not saying that a direct consumer tariff would be easy or without legal and bureaucratic obstacles. I merely want to take the problem to those who create the problem. In the end, it’s not the companies that produce and use fossil fuels in their products and services that cause the pollution; it is, rather, demand for their products and services that does.
All the best,
Art
All the best,
Art
Thanks Art. I guess I still wondering what a “carbon penalty on the end users” looks like and how do we implement it?
Timothy,
I’m not a policy guy so I am speaking at a high conceptual level. I imagine it as a simple tax like gasoline tax at the pump. The details of how to apply it to different products and services would be easy enough to calculate, and probably messy to assign for political and legal reasons.
I’m also not much of a solution guy. I put a 95% probability that nothing we do at this point will avert a climate and environmental disaster, and a 50% chance that the needed behavior change happens after the collapse. Then there’s the ever-present risk of nuclear war that makes all of this an exercise in futility.
All the best,
Art
Humans have the ability to deny reality . Beliefs come out of this non reality ability. Beliefs especially when shared and promoted are a powerful force against reality, which is understandable considering the consequences resulting from our reality situation.
It is certainly not popular especially politically to suggest we are in an existence level predicament. Humans will go along to get along until they can’t. I really appreciate Art’s insights, one of the few seeing the big picture reality.
Bob,
Thanks for your comments. I suggest that you read my posts “The Psychology of Climate Change”
https://www.artberman.com/blog/the-psychology-of-climate-change/
and “Populism: The Fourth Horseman of The Coming Decade”
https://www.artberman.com/blog/populism-the-fourth-horseman-of-the-coming-decade/
All the best,
Art
Couldn’t agree more, Art. Change (conservation) starts at the local level, the level of the individual.
Unfortunately, our governments are hierarchical systems that, to maintain their power, exploit the deepest (often delusional) desires of individuals, such as “we can get something for nothing,” etc. I suspect change will come only when it is forced by the physical constraints of nature (and perhaps the emergent systems of finance that rely on her). Just how it is.
Stay positive.
Pete,
Exactly. I’m satisfied with the way things are which is good because there’s no other option!
All the best,
Art
How is carbon pollution?
Wake up to physics, Joel. When energy converted to work, waste heat + CO2 are produced. That’s pollution.
There are a number of analysis that suggest: change the finance, not the climate. Investors and their managers look at the thinning margins for profits with the renewables as the costs come down while the profits in the fossil fuel arena are 10%+ and renewables are in the 5% range. The half-life of a ff power plant from start to decommissioning (old or new) need to be amortized and depreciated. Renewables half-lives and costs arre different. There are numerous options open to government including public ownership of utilities and infrastructure, not just in the energy area. From the results of the Regan/Thatcher efforts and the analysis in other other countries, public ownership from roads, water systems, etc and the efforts in privatization of Nature, the public ownership, just from the investment/management, is a better financial bet not even having to monetize the social and environmental benefits. I wonder if Paula Diperna (Pricing the Priceless) really has convinced the Pope in this respect.
Tom,
You can put as much lipstick on the renewable pig as you like but it doesn’t change the unfortunate reality that renewables are a zero-rounding error for energy and unlikely to move the needle any time within the window of climate urgency. It also annoys the pig.
All the best,
Art
I agree that the impact of renewables are a microdot in the energy sector on a 1:1 basis but there are indirect or externalities other than CO2. The question comes home with the realization that any response from an energy and environmental perspective requires a solution that, at the bottom, confilcts with financialization of the issue which is a systems option
As I note, consideration of this sector requires declaring energy, water, etc as public assets for ownership and management. That requires a hybrid, a reformulation of capitalism. Rebecca Henderson, who has spent over a decade working with the private sector in the ESG arena opens chapter 1 with the following:
” When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” “Shareholder Value as Yesterday’s Idea”
As I noted, asset managers expect a 10%+ return as with FF and similar returns for “stock owners” in general. This is an issue put forth by both Marx and Polanyi. Until Capitalism returns to its basic “use value” the fate of the entire ecosystem including energy and its byproducts, as suggests by Henderson, will remain elusive.
This is happening globally as other countries are now stepping around the US’s rule based international economic system which is a more complex issue.
Tom,
I honestly don’t think capitalism has much to do with things at all–it’s just the dominant manifestation of the human super organism, and it transcends all present political ideologies–communism, socialism, etc.
Human behavior and psychology are the frontier–not policies or theories.
All the best,
Art
We have met the enemy and he is us? – Pogo circa 1972
Well said, Karl!
All the best,
Art
The middle-class is under constant economic pressure to sustain a semblance of hope for their children, houses are unaffordable to first-time home buyers, food & housing are up >40% in four years, and Mr. Burman (a Boomer) is calling for less efficient (more expensive energy i.e. inflationary) energy costs – typical Boomer trope that drives the struggling middle-class into poverty.
Scott,
Thanks for your comments. Renewable energy is unquestionably more expensive. If it could significantly reduce carbon emissions, it would be worth the price but it has not and likely will not.
All the best,
Art