I've spent half a century (yikes) writing for radio and print—mostly print. I hope to be still tapping the keys as I take my last breath.
The Costs of Pollution
For a long time pollution was free. We burned coal in our home furnaces and gasoline cost a few pennies a litre, so we drove big, gas-guzzling cars. The smoke stacks of industry spewed toxic gasses into the atmosphere. Rivers, lakes, and oceans were seen as good places to dump poisonous wastes.
In the early 1960s, people started to realize that there was a cost to pollution.
In 1962, marine biologist Rachel Carson published her book, Silent Spring. It described the harm done by the use of pesticides and predicted a spring in which all the birds and insects were dead and people woke to a world without their sounds.
In her book, she wrote about a town in which “There was a strange stillness. The birds, for example—where had they gone? ... The few birds seen anywhere ... trembled violently and could not fly. It was a spring without voices. On the mornings that had once throbbed with the dawn chorus of ... (many) bird voices there was now no sound: only silence lay over the fields and woods and marsh.”
Ms. Carson’s book is often cited as the event that started the environmental movement.
Certainly, some people worked on environmental concerns as early as the end of the 19th century. However, Silent Spring brought the issue to the general public and kick-started activist groups.
Governments started passing laws to make vehicles more fuel-efficient. Industries were fined for toxic spills, deliberate or accidental. Chemicals faced more accurate testing and some were banned. But, for the most part, few people paid attention to carbon. The realization that the planet was heating up and that the release of carbon was a major cause changed that.
Carbon dioxide is a major component of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As long as releasing carbon dioxide was free of charge there was no incentive to cut emissions.
Here’s what a Canadian government background paper says: “Putting a price on carbon pollution is the most efficient way to reduce GHG emissions. Pricing pollution will drive innovative solutions to provide low-carbon choices for consumers and businesses.”
Canada has a national carbon-pricing strategy that is strongly resisted by conservative governments at the provincial level.
But, Canada is coming late to the game. The European Union has had a carbon pricing system in place since 2005. And, as long as the Republican Party controls the U.S. government there won’t be a national carbon pricing structure in America.
The most direct way of placing a price on carbon dioxide is through a tax based on the amount of emissions. Under the Canadian plan, this starts out with a price of $10 per tonne. This figure rises by $10 a year until it reaches $50 a tonne in 2022.
British Columbia was the first jurisdiction to bring in a carbon tax in North America. In 2008, it set the price of carbon dioxide at $10 a tonne and raised this to $30 in 2012. To ease the shock, B.C. cut other taxes to compensate, in what’s called a “revenue neutral” system. Overall, the government takes in no more tax income than it did before the carbon tax.
Critics say the price of $50 a tonne is too low for Canada to meet its international commitments for GHG reductions. The International Monetary Fund says that a price of at least $100 a tonne is needed for countries to meet the targets they agreed to at the Paris Climate Accord. The longer they delay putting a price on carbon, the higher the price will have to be.
Ontario and Quebec have chosen to use an indirect taxing system that’s called “Cap-and-Trade,” since cancelled by Ontario’s Conservative Party. The government sets the upper limit of emissions allowed—the cap. Each business gets a permit for its cap. Then, explains The Globe and Mail, “If a company wants to burn more than its share of carbon, it must buy extra permits from other companies that have burned less”—that’s the trade part.
The actual price of additional permits is set by the market itself based on the law of supply and demand. The Globe and Mail continues “Over time, the government gradually lowers the cap, cutting the number of permits it issues and driving up their price.
“The idea is that some companies will cut their carbon emissions in order to make money by selling their extra permits, while other companies will cut emissions to avoid having to pay the price to buy more permits.”
Ontario and Quebec joined California in a carbon trading system in which permits were auctioned. The first auction in February 2018 yielded a price of $18.44 CAD per tonne.
It’s a complicated system and has run into some glitches in the European Union (EU) where it is used. Those who challenge the whole global warming notion say the EU experience shows that the cap and trade system should be trashed. Proponents say such a complex and completely new system was bound to develop kinks and they are being worked out.
Weighing Carbon Dioxide
In order to know how much people and industries must pay for carbon emissions you have to know how much they are releasing. But, carbon dioxide is a gas like air; it doesn’t appear to weigh anything. Actually it does.
Through laboratory experiments, the weight of CO2 produced by burning a known quantity of hydrocarbons has been established. So, if a given factory burns a million cubic metres of natural gas the exact amount of its carbon emissions can be calculated. It’s the same with cars. It’s known how much carbon is released by using a litre of regular gasoline.
The math is fairly straightforward. The Canadian government has done the calculations for us, “… a $10 per tonne carbon price is approximately 2.3 cents per litre of gasoline, 2.7 cents per litre of diesel, and 1.5 cents per litre of propane.”
Armed with that information, consumers can make their choices. They can buy a large sport utility vehicle at a carbon tax cost of almost 50 cents per 100 km. At the other end, is the fuel-sipping Smart car at 14 cents per 100 km. Those who emit more carbon dioxide pay more for doing so.
The politics of carbon pricing on a global scale are pretty much the same everywhere. Centrist and left-wing parties support carbon pricing; right-wing politicians oppose it.
According to the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC), “As of 2017, 42 national and 25 sub-national jurisdictions are pricing carbon.” These represent about 22 percent of all carbon emissions.
“The European Union pioneered international carbon emissions trading ... The system, currently the world’s largest, covers more than 11,000 power stations and industrial plants, along with airlines, in the 28 EU countries plus three other countries.”
China, Mexico, South Korea, and a few others either have carbon pricing in place or are planning for it.
In the United States, President Donald Trump says he has no interest in putting a price on carbon. He says climate change is a hoax. However, some states and cities, led by California, are going ahead with carbon pricing schemes of their own.
Australia’s left-wing Labour government brought in carbon pricing in 2011. The centre-right Liberal Party won the 2013 election and scrapped the program.
The Private Sector
While the focus is on government action in putting a price on carbon some non-government organizations are going ahead with plans of their own.
In July 2017, Yale University in the United States started a program to reduce its carbon emissions. The university will charge each of its 250 campus buildings $40 a tonne for carbon emissions. As reported by Nature, “Buildings that reduce their emissions more than the average will receive a share of the funds collected.”
The plan is really a research project aimed at gathering real-world experience in carbon pricing.
In 2012, the high-tech giant Microsoft launched an internal carbon fee. Here’s Nature again: “The fee covers energy consumption (adjusted for employee count) from data centres, offices, and software-development labs, as well as from business air travel.” The fee was set very low at $4 a tonne, but even then the company has seen annual savings of $10 million and a reduction in emissions of about 7.5 million tonnes.
The money saved has been reinvested in green power initiatives.
When Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published, chemical companies attacked her. She was not qualified to write about science, they said. Pesticides are perfectly safe, they said. In 2012, the American Chemical Society designated Silent Spring a National Historic Chemical Landmark for its leadership in developing the environmental movement.
According to the World Bank “in 2017 nearly 1,400 companies disclosed the use of an internal carbon price, including more than 100 Fortune Global 500 companies with collective annual revenues of $7 trillion.”
- “Pricing Carbon Pollution in Canada: How it Will Work.” Government of Canada, June 21, 2017.
- “Cap and Trade Explained: What Ontario’s Shift on Emissions Will Mean.” Adrian Morrow, Globe and Mail, May 14, 2018.
- “Lessons From First Campus Carbon-Pricing Scheme.” Kenneth Gillingham, et al., Nature, October 31, 2017.
- “Carbon Pricing in Action.” Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, 2018.
This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.
© 2018 Rupert Taylor
Miebakagh Fiberesima from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, NIGERIA. on May 26, 2018:
Hi Rupert, I am also an environmentally friendly person. I am a friend of the earth, first and foremost.
I would not stand someone beside me pollute the ground. That is my make up.
Then, how long should I take sides with a smoker? Pardon me if you smoke.
Pollution, whether marine, forest, air and soon is a very unfriendly atmosphere. It is a silent stress factor.
Look around you. You see pollution roundabout with your eyes and nose. How do you feel? Relaxed or stressed?
Besides government and organizational efforts, I think the best way to contribute to ending pollution is by each individual taking a step against it right from his/her doorstep.
Thank you, Rupert.