Stake your claimGiven the scarcity and “utility” of the resource, some important questions arise
.
Who owns the atmosphere? Who receives
the proceeds of any rationing by price?
Who misses out?
Thinking globally sometimes requires a bit
of mind expansion, but you don't need a
brain the size of a planet to know the air
belongs to everyone. However, there are a
lot of smart and cunning people who claim
otherwise. They want to own emissions
rights. They want the atmosphere
privatised – and they want it for free.
Then they want to profit by rationing your
diminishing share of the atmosphere –
without paying compensation – without
acknowledging anybody’s entitlement but
their own. The sky’s limit is a ground floor
opportunity to grab a piece of the action.
Four views of ownership
Whether stated, implied or unconsciously assumed, there are at least four views about the right
to dump in the commons of the atmosphere. These attitudes are demonstrated by individuals,
corporations, communities and nation states.
1. Historical justice. "The air belongs to everyone, equally. The wasteful have already used up
more than their share of the dump. They have even used up what does not belong to them and
must pay just compensation for their greed." There is only a problem because of the excesses of
wealthy industrialised countries. People in less industrialised countries must have the right to
the resources they need for development and well being, without having them appropriated.
The remaining capacity belongs to those who have not yet used up their share. Since a just
situation cannot be restored, the industrial countries must pay (very significant) compensation.
Third world debt would reverse its sign to become a credit, then industrialised nations would
have to pay dearly to obtain carbon rations from the rest of the world.
2. Fresh Start. “We must not blame or punish for past mistakes. Nobody imagined the atmosphere
was finite, so this is a new situation. From now on we're going to do things equitably.” The
remaining dump capacity belongs equally to everybody. Those who continue to use more than
their diminishing share will have to compensate those who use less. The dump capacity can be
rationed through a world price, but the proceeds belong to the owners - everybody. Although a
market mechanism is proposed, this view of ownership is consistent with "Contraction and
Convergence".
3. First in first serve. "We all have to cut back equally. The dump belongs to those who filled it up,
so we will formalise this right by issuing permits according to current emissions levels - then
slowly cut them back." This view is the moral equivalent of claiming that the last piece of the
cake belongs to those who already ate the most. "That's just too bad for those who missed out.
It's a competitive world. Stop that whinging - you lost, fair and square." This attitude is most
prevalent amongst developed nations with powerful fossil fuel industries. It is the rationale
behind "cap and trade". If the world has to reduce total emissions by 60% then those who use
almost nothing also have to cut by 60% too so that big consumers can maintain their relative
position at minimum cost. Despite claiming a belief in markets, they don't want a price for
carbon built upon equitable ownership. They want a market in the ownership of “emissions
rights” – they want the atmosphere privatised. By getting their governments to hand
over emissions rights to big polluters, they establish their ownership - they can then ration the
shrinking dump capacity by price.
4. Freeloader. "We will defend our freedom to the death - preferably yours!" This view accepts no
restraint unless forced by an overwhelming power. There is no concept of the public good
except when it serves self interest. "Nobody owns the air, it is free and we love freedom. You
can't put a fence around it, so you can't make us pay neither." Such a view is characterised by
climate change denial and active opposition to and disruption of attempts at regulation. You'd
have to be the most powerful nation on the planet to get away with this – or sucking up to one.
A just and moral basis for regulation
The ownership of the atmosphere is an issue that can no longer be overlooked. The small remaining
dump capacity is now too valuable to maintain that ownership is irrelevant. Your opinions and
policy preferences will always imply one form of ownership or another.
I agree with the Fresh Start group. “Cap and Trade” schemes give away increasingly valuable
assets to today’s polluters, then questionable offset schemes often mean they don't actually have to
reduce emissions. And attempts at retrospective justice often substitute one imbalance for another.
A world carbon price via a Fossil Fuels Tax
To prevent potential anomalies, and ensure all polluters pay (and hence their customers), I very
much prefer a single, adjustable, world carbon price applied as a global Fossil Fuels Tax at the well
head or mine gate. Individuals in all countries would receive their carbon ration in the form of
sufficient money to buy their share of carbon emissions at the current price. Higher usage comes out
of pocket, while lower usage produces income to help pay for development and investments in
efficiency and low emission technology.
Although a lot simpler than just about every other proposal or scheme around, there is more to it. A
fully developed global warming policy would address the determination of the carbon price, the
effect over time, rebates for geosequestration, regulation, management and incentives for carbon
sinks and storage, biosequestration, forests, land use and agriculture. Not to mention the control of
other greenhouse gasses and social policies for adaptation to the effects of climate change.
As a temporary measure, the same concept will work within nation states using negotiated targets
for individual countries, but like other schemes, this creates complexity in trade. Carbon taxes
would have to be refunded for exports and reasserted by importing countries according to the
product’s associated emissions and the local carbon price. Meanwhile the poor loose their air.
A world policy will be difficult to enact because it requires a global jurisdiction or an international
protocol. It would mean that a lot of Australian dollars will go to people in third world countries
until we get our per capita emissions closer to the world average. Rich nation states would be
reluctant to agree to abide by a global democratic decision or to cede sovereignty to an international
authority. However, every person has a vital interest in the equitable management of the global
commons. Narrow self interest can only lead to tragedy. The human right of equal ownership must
be asserted before our most collective asset becomes a private waste dump for the profit of a few.
Quotas and coupons?
If anyone can show me some worthwhile advantages, I could be persuaded to go along with
rationing using tradable quotas, but I oppose privatisation of the air through emissions rights to
polluters – the polluters should obtain their allowances from the human beings that they belong to.
Let the people spend their emissions allowances where they see fit.
While you think about regulation for the common good and privatisation, it may help to reflect
upon "The Tragedy of the Commons". Stick it into google, but here's a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons