There has been much debate about alternatives to fossil fuels, in particular renewables, and indeed all of them will be needed in the fight against global warming and oil and gas depletion. The easiest, cheapest and most effective way, though, is just to use less.
To conserve energy is to continue to have our needs met whilst using less energy. The West has never before needed to get the best use out of each unit of energy because fossil fuels have been so cheap, and so has been incredibly wasteful.
In the past this waste could be partially excused because no-one realised the effects overuse of fossil fuels would have. With our present knowledge though it is deplorable that this is still happening, especially when with appropriate government-driven incentives, it would be simple to cut consumption. In fact, fossil fuels use could be easily reduced by an amount that would keep global warming below the crucial 2ºC increase, free us from over-dependence on imported oil and gas, and push back the timing of oil depletion. What a result that would be! At
www.peakfood.co.uk ,we believe it's just possible.
Tragically even those of us who are convinced of the extreme impending danger are only changing in ways that don't hurt too much. We may, for instance, change to low energy lighting, install extra insulation in the home and switch off electrical items instead of leaving them on stand-by. Such action is beneficial, and saves householders money, but they are not nearly enough! We need really big reductions in fossil energy use and new technology to push it along and we need it fast.
However, even governments that have been warning that climate change is the biggest threat to mankind (such as Tony Blair's Labour government in the UK) seem unwilling to make the changes needed. The reason is simple: they do not believe that the electorate want such change, and do not wish to jeopardise their standing.
Fortunately, public attitudes have changed over the past year. The various scientific reports (including that of the March 2007 IPCC) have almost silenced the denial lobby and the urgency of the situation is now becoming apparent. Ordinary people are becoming more knowledgeable and realising this is not just a problem for polar bears in the distant future, but for themselves and their children now. They are realising that they are condemning future generations to a bleak existence simply because this generation refuses to make the effort needed to do something that is definitely attainable i.e. keep warming from increasing more than 2ºC and delay oil and gas depletion.
Governments in Europe, who are in general more environmentally aware than elsewhere in the world, seem to be giving up on the + 2ºC target and now think that + 3ºC may be the best that can be achieved. In my opinion, this defeatist attitude will bring disaster, as scientists tell us that over 2ºC the runaway effects such as increased ocean evaporation causing more warming therefore more evaporation and so on, will kick in. It seems to me that up to + 2ºC we have some control over our destiny, above +2ºC we have lost it.
In Europe and maybe in America too, we may have a situation where a changed public opinion will embolden governments to make the radical changes needed. This would be to base the entire tax system at local, national and federal level on a massive carbon tax. Income tax, employment taxes and even sales taxes would be replaced by carbon tax. This would change our decision-making and cause technological innovation at the high speed that is necessary. There would be no need to have a complex tax system applying different levels to fuel for cars, trucks, aircraft, electricity etc. By taxing according to how much CO² will be emitted, each fuel will compete on that criterion, the only one that really matters for the purpose. Coal would be taxed more heavily than oil, and oil more than natural gas because of the level of CO² emitted compared to the energy content. Biofuels would not be taxed, but of course fossil fuel inputs would be. Therefore ethanol produced using coal for process heat would become more expensive than that using straw or biogas. Each form of transport would compete according to carbon use, therefore rail and bus would increase in popularity and not need a subsidy.
There are vast amounts of coal left in the world and the coal industry constantly talks of clean coal technology. They often simply mean more efficient generation and the removal of sulphur. They claim that they can remove the CO² into old mines and oil fields, but this will not happen quickly if carbon is not taxed.
If the CO² was removed at coal-fired power plants and coal-to-liquid plants, then coal would have a very bright future. It would only be taxed on the energy used in production, transport and the extra cost of burying CO². Estimated at 40% by some experts, this extra cost would be less than the tax on other fuels.
Without a carbon tax the coal-fired electricity industry will talk a lot but do nothing. A carbon tax is a simple mechanism to achieve our desired result across the board. By taxing the basic fossil energy sources of coal, oil and gas, it would automatically make expensive products that are costly in energy terms to manufacture or power. Similarly for food with a high energy input, the price differentiated compared with foods with low energy input would widen. In this way protein from vegetable sources such as beans and peas would be far cheaper than that from animal sources because less taxed inputs would be used for each unit of protein produced. Even for animal protein the price gap between, say, corn-fed beef and chicken would widen, reflecting the energy requirement to produce each.
Moreover, if diets changed to reflect energy input and therefore cost, the move to less red meat and more vegetables, especially legumes, would give a healthier diet and need less acres to produce.
Trade
As the developed nations started the industrial revolution and per capita are still by far the biggest consumers of energy, they will have to be the first to implement changes radical enough to cut consumption fast. A low carbon economy would eventually be a more efficient economy with low costs, but while the change was in progress trade laws would have to change.
If Europe, for example, turned its tax system to taxing carbon, it would be entitled to insist that imported goods from any nation that did not have the same taxes would need to be accompanied by a verifiable carbon audit showing the carbon cost. Import duty would be levied accordingly. Alternatively, goods would be categorised according to average energy input for duty purposes. This system would mean that the tax levied on carbon would be collected by the importing country rather than the producing country, so that the producing countries would be induced to tax carbon themselves.
Although developing countries would protest initially, they too would reap the benefits of a low carbon economy and there is, in my opinion, no other mechanism that would make changes big and quick enough to avert famine.
What's more this system would collapse the argument in the West that growth in Asia would wipe out savings made here and that we will be simply exporting pollution to those areas.
Is a Carbon Tax Fair?
No tax seems fair to those who are paying more than average, but as a replacement for income and sales taxes and even property-based local taxes, carbon tax is very fair. In general the higher a person's income or wealth, the more he presently pays in all of these taxes, but a carbon tax allows people to change their behaviour and spend their income in less fuel-hungry ways. The very rich would make big income tax savings but would almost certainly pay lots of carbon tax. Poor families who now use less energy than average would be better off. Some people, such as those on fixed state pensions in Europe would be worse off, so some of the carbon tax revenue would need to be used to increase their pension and also give grants for home insulation and other energy saving initiatives.
There is a great deal that ordinary people can do to cut energy waste if the financial incentive is large enough. A few years ago, it was thought that electronic communication, especially the internet, would allow more people to work from home, saving fuel and time. This has not happened as quickly as hoped, partly one suspects, because people need the discipline of actually showing up at work and staying for the set hours. The home has too many distractions for all but the most dedicated worker. One solution would be small high-tech suburban office blocks where companies could hire space for their employees close to where they live.
Similarly, today's communication systems such as e-mail, video conferencing and the now universal cell phone with its voice and text facilities, should make the need for face-to-face business meetings unnecessary in most cases; but so far the opposite seems to be the case. The freeways, motorways and autobahns of this world are crowded with cars, usually with one occupant, many of whom are travelling many miles for a meeting with a client, customer, supplier, lawyer, accountant or whoever because that's the way business is done.
Similarly, the first class and business class sections of airplanes are filled with business people who have usually done all the months of preparation for a deal by the marvellous electronic methods now available, but feel the need to fly half-way around the world for a face-to-face meeting, a handshake and a signature.
Car-sharing is not done anything like as much as would be expected considering that in any suburban area there must be many sets of people who work close together in the commercial or industrial areas of the towns and cities. The internet would be a quick and easy way of linking people with the same travel needs.
Electronic communication, car-sharing and similar energy saving moves will quickly look very attractive indeed when carbon is heavily taxed, leading to changes in behaviour and consequently lower CO² emission and slower fossil fuel depletion.
Carbon Tax and Innovation
President George Bush has said that technology will solve the problems of climate change and oil dependency and I agree. But to rely on normal market forces to drive innovation is going to be far too slow to keep warming below + 2ºC or to eliminate the danger of oil and gas supply disruption. If carbon was the basis of the tax system, successful innovation would be rewarding. Every sector would need to invest enormous sums of money in change to ensure survival.
When the financial rewards are huge, innovation and development can be extremely rapid. In computers, for example, change has been at a speed that even the experts could not foresee. I remember being shown around a large coal-fired power plant many years ago that was built in two stages several years apart. A very large room was half-filled with the computers needed to control the first stage of the plant and the empty half was ready for the computers to control the second stage. Of course, by the time the second stage was built computer processing power had increased dramatically and all the computers could be fitted into a room that wasn't much bigger than a closet.
The technology is already available that would significantly reduce fuel use if given the push of higher taxes. The next generation Toyota Prius hybrid will be capable of 100 mpg. Diesel hybrids with extra battery capacity for plug-in overnight charge using off-peak electricity would be even more advantageous as they would make use of wind power and other electric generation that tends to produce surplus overnight power. Since most daily travel to work and shopping is short distance, overnight charging would be enough for these trips, with the diesel or gasoline engine being used for long journeys.
Probably even better than the plug-in hybrid would be a car powered only by a battery that could be quickly changed. Service stations would have a facility whereby a car would have its partly discharged battery removed automatically, and a fully-charged one slotted in. Payment would also be automatic so that the change would take only a few minutes. In any vehicle, but especially an electric-powered one, weight is crucial to give a good balance between range and economy. In an all-electric vehicle with plug-in overnight charge and quick-swap battery facility, the weight of the engine and fuel in a hybrid would be saved so that a large battery could be fitted giving a good range between charges or battery swaps. And of course it is likely that innovation would soon increase the run-times of these cars.
With a carbon tax in place, every product from small electrical appliances to houses would be bought with energy consumption in mind. Incandescent lighting and stand-by on televisions and other electrical goods would become less popular. The design of homes would be geared to energy savings. It is already possible to build a home that needs very little fossil energy to run by having excellent insulation, no large north facing windows, a ground source heat pump and solar panels for water heating.
In Sweden, city building codes require new homes to be built to such high standards that they require less energy to heat them than most new homes built in Britain where winters are far milder. The additional building cost is quickly recovered in lower energy bills. For older houses, carbon tax would speed up insulation of roofs, cavity walls and windows, and would encourage the use of more advanced heat and control systems.
A heavy carbon tax would stimulate rapid innovation in every industry from agriculture to heavy engineering. We must bear in mind that the world as we see it today has been developed on the basis of cheap fossil fuel. There has been no reason to develop new machines that are more economical but have a higher capital cost that takes years to repay in fuel savings. Technologies to utilise present day sunshine have struggled to compete with fossil fuels.A carbon tax will hasten a time when we can manage on abundant renewable resources.
