TalkClimateChange

The outcome of current climate treaty discussions will revolve around the resolution of the current deadlock between the US, China and India. What are the options for resolving this issue, and what’s behind it? We’ve had an idea..

The US rightly says that any action on their behalf is pointless when China opens a new coal fired power station every week. However, the US’ position is weakened somewhat by the fact that they are still the world’s biggest polluter - in fact a report this week ranked the US as second only to Saudi Arabia in terms of doing nothing to combat climate change.

China and India argue that since the current problem was caused by the Western World in the first place  we should take responsibility for cleaning it up. Don’t they have a right to unimpeded development just like we had, and what motivation do they have for burdening their economies when the majority of their people have living standards well below the Western average?

The point is anyway largely irrelevant -unless all nations can agree to reduce emissions we are going to face some serious problems sooner or later, either (as some say) from Co2 induced global warming, or in the very least from the standpoint of pure sustainability. As our population continues to expand we are going to encounter the issue of finite resources at some point.

Nothing new so far. So what’s the idea?

One thing which escapes many people in the West as they point to the East’s rising industrial emissions is that a large amount of the East’s production is being consumed in the West anyway. We’ve not only outsourced large amounts of production, but a large amount of the Co2 issue too. Increasing their cost of production through climate treaties will impact our wallets in any case as costs are passed on to the consumer.

So perhaps the solution might lie in placing the cost of pollution not with the polluter, but with the consumer. If the consumer must pay a pollution tax on top of any goods purchased then a couple of things happen;

Firstly, the playing field is levelled - Western goods which are built in expensive factories adhering to emissions standards are not going to be undercut by goods from the developing world built in an environmentally disastrous shed. Environmentally friendly goods will be taxed at lower rates, cheaply produced mega-carbon goods will be taxed at higher rates.

Secondly, transparency on additional pollution cost and the small amount of pain this may cause will encourage a more sustainable approach to mass consumption: Buy cheap, buy twice and pay two lots of shipping & production emissions tax.  We create masses of waste each year because things are just too cheap and flimsy. Goods which are durable and of high quality - a potential differentiator of Western manufacturing technology - will be preferable to the type of disposable consumption mentality that we have now become used to.

A knock on benefit of this approach is that as we struggle to keep up with the growing industrial might of the developing world, adding a bit of additional competition in terms of higher quality expectations might help redress the balance and breathe some new life into the West’s ailing manufacturing industries.

We are, of course, fully aware of the thousands of potential obstacles to such a scheme, although in its favour is the fact that it can be implemented without an international consensus - which is the biggest roadblock to everything else on the table. The size of the US market alone means that such a scheme would force the rest of the world to take a second look at their manufacturing infrastructure if they are to remain competitive and not make a big dent in their profits.

Workable idea?  Total madness? or complete fantasy? What’s your view?