The problem of climate change has long been a tricky issue. Partly because it is an economic issue, security issue, equity issue, and many more, but also because the industries that stand to lose from the rise of more environmentally friendly activities have extremely powerful lobbies.
This article from The Economist details the rise of an equity-based response to climate change. Admittedly, the plan is currently in its early stages and is vague on cost and nature, but the equity approach to climate change seems to have at least some merit. The idea of decreasing economic inequality while at the same time reducing the carbon dependence of the state may sound good to some of the masses that could attain jobs in the growing "green energy" sector, but does that discount the coal workers and the coal lobby? Certainly the wealthy coal industry wouldn't have much of an incentive to cooperate, and this approach of mobilizing a group of people who are more passionate and better funded than those in the carbon energy industry seems far fetched.
Additionally, an appeal to the masses might serve to alienate those who work relatively low-paying jobs for coal or natural gas producers. As well as being incredibly expensive, convincing people to get behind it en masse is a task equally as daunting as creating a functioning piece of legislation.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/02/07/a-bold-new-plan-to-tackle-climate-change-ignores-economic-orthodoxy
2 comments:
I think this is definitely an interesting approach to climate change. I agree that legislation for a program of a social carbon tax would be extremely difficult to compose and pass. I think there are too many variables and unknowns to come up with a social cost for emissions that people would have to pay. I like the idea but, I do not see this getting that far.
The Pigouvian tax/subsequent dividend suggested by the article does seem like the most realistic outcome of this legislation. While the concurrent lowering of income inequality does sound great at face value, I agree that it does seem a little too far-fetched to be plausible. I'm interested to see future concrete logistic details and how the previously mentioned economic inequality will be concurrently remedied.
Post a Comment