This is a subscriber-only article
If Ireland was a planet with its very own atmosphere, banging out greenhouse gas emissions without controls and orbiting brainlessly towards self-destruction, there would be just one prudent course of action. Set a planetary target for emissions in line with the best scientific evidence and stick to it. If that meant curtailment of livestock farming, or driving about in cars, too bad; the survival of human civilisation would have to come first. Every tonne of emissions avoided would be its own reward and the full benefit of every effort would accrue to those making it – the Irish.
A surprising number of people accept without question the national, as distinct from global, nature of the climate challenge and support national emission targets. If there is one secure conclusion from the experience of the last quarter century (the United Nations Convention on Climate Change dates from 1992), it is that national targets have failed and there are good reasons to expect the failure to continue. There is a simple economic notion which explains the failure, called the free-rider problem.
Good global citizens
Everyone favours the solution of collective problems through the voluntary efforts of everyone else. That the European Union persists in a climate policy which has failed is admirable in a daft sort of way; the European countries are being good global citizens.
But Europe produces just 12% of global emissions, half the output of China or of Donald Trump’s America. If the Americans, Chinese and a handful of others decide not to make a comparable effort, the sacrifice in Europe will not make a worthwhile difference.
Ireland barely has a climate, it just has weather. The planet as a whole shares a single atmosphere, to the alteration of which Ireland contributes one-fifth of 1% of worldwide emissions. The evidence is persuasive that the indefinite growth in emissions will eventually alter the earth’s climate with drastic negative consequences. But it also tells us that every tonne of emissions, from whatever source or country, has an equal effect.
If the science was telling us that the earth would burn to a cinder 50 years from now (the science does not say anything quite so simple) the immediate and total elimination of Ireland’s emissions would delay the planet’s incineration by a matter of weeks.
There is no pay-off to any small country for incurring the costs of emission reduction, since the benefits accrue almost entirely to others. Very big countries have a stronger incentive to make an effort.
If planet earth had the good fortune to be colonised by a superior species from outer space the new rulers, anxious to maintain their colony in working order for a century or two, would quickly dissolve its 200 squabbling governments.
Subsidies
With just one world decision-making system run by super-intelligent aliens, there would be just one worldwide climate policy. First up: who amongst the 200 squabblers has been pursuing destructive policies that encourage emissions? Most people would agree that gasoline is too cheap in the USA – cost per litre at the pump is around half the figure for most European countries. There are some modest taxes in the USA adding up to about 15%.
But there are countries which actually subsidise the retail price of petrol and the list includes some pretty big ones – Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Egypt, Malaysia, Russia, Pakistan and about 50 others.
There are no taxes at all, worldwide, on marine fuel and jet kerosene (by solemn international agreement, incidentally). In Europe, brown coal (lignite) for electricity generation is subsidised in Germany, currently the continent’s virtue champions in matters environmental, while peat gets the same treatment in Ireland. Our alien overlords would surely notice.
Being more intelligent than earthlings they would quickly forget about production-based emission targets. Production equals consumption for the planet as a whole. Europe has bathed itself in virtue by adopting production-based targets with greater enthusiasm than others, but if carbon-intensive industries simply transfer to the developing countries the policy is just outsourcing emissions. Far better to discourage consumption of carbon-intensive products everywhere and let them be produced (in reduced quantities) in the most favourable locations. If that means steel in China and carbon-light services in Europe, so be it.
Last week’s Irish Farmers Journal quoted John Fitzgerald, chair of the government’s advisory committee on climate policy, to the effect that restrictions on livestock farming in Ireland could be moderated because methane in the atmosphere decays quicker than other greenhouse gas emissions.
In a world governed as a unit, livestock farming would take place in the most favourable locations, constrained only by a carbon tax on the consumption of the products, a favourable outcome for Ireland.
Any dairy farmers who spot some determined little green men descending from their spacecraft should roll out the red carpet.
SHARING OPTIONS: