I attended a seminar recently on carbon cap-and-trade schemes. While skeptics say such schemes are merely a licence to pollute, I have kept an open mind about them. They are a useful subject for discussion and learning. The idea of such schemes is that each country sets a ‘cap’ — the maximum amount of carbon that all users of petrochemicals collectively can import, produce and sell (‘upstream’ schemes) or can emit (‘downstream’ schemes). That cap is then divided into a large number of ‘allowances’ that are given out (or auctioned) to importers and producers of petrochemicals, or to emitters of CO2. The sum of the allowances cannot exceed the cap. To the extent you need more allowances than you’re allotted to continue to operate, you need to buy them from those who aren’t fully using theirs. Supply and demand will then determine the ‘market’ price for these allowances. The lower the cap, the higher the value of each allowance.
It’s an interesting approach in theory, but is has a lot of practical problems:
What is more interesting is that the proponents of caps, both environmentalists and polluters (willing to do their part as long as there’s a level playing field) extol the virtues of such schemes, but do so from utterly irreconcilable worldviews.
The polluters and what-me-worry politicians of the Bush and Harper camps see such schemes as a way to avoid Kyoto, implementation of which they believe would be devastating to the endless continuation of the current growth-dependent economy. All we need to do, they say, is set the caps high enough that the allowances are modestly priced and provide a measurable, gradual incremental cost to doing business-as-usual that they can manage, and report on to shareholders and citizens with the appropriate self-congratulation.
The naive environmentalists and technophiles (there were a couple of these at the seminar) see such schemes as a way to quickly and radically curtail carbon emissions by making a ‘market’ that appeals to business and encourages compliance. All we need to do, they say, is set the caps low enough that we can meet and exceed Kyoto, and let the ‘market’ sort out how to do this on its own, without the need for governments or moral suasion. Like credit card fraud and insurance, it’s just a new, measurable cost of doing business.
So at meetings like the seminar I attended, the attendees, at least superficially, smile and shake hands and agree they are of one mind, that this can work if we want it to.
But then when you talk with the attendees one-on-one you hear some nagging doubts. The three bulleted problems above are top-of-mind, but there is a deep sense that this is just too easy, that it’s an optical illusion, a compromise that can’t hold and in fact doesn’t even exist.
And in fact they’re right. It’s all smoke and mirrors. The reality is that the caps that the polluters and right-wing business-as-usual governments want would have to be in the stratosphere, and would be allowed to increase when new oil sources were found or to the extent population rose (and the price of allowances would also be capped, by issuing an unlimited number of additional allowances as soon as the ‘market’ price exceeded that cap). These caps would essentially allow CO2 levels to continue to rise, rather than bringing them down. The minute the caps were lowered, three things would happen: (a) it would become more profitable to circumvent the scheme than to comply with it, even with penalties, (b) authorities would realize that they couldn’t really enforce compliance with the scheme, and (c) the price of the allowances would rise from nominal to astronomical. The polluters would cry foul, and say that wasn’t what they agreed to, and would pour money into the coffers of politicians willing to rescind the scheme.
Meanwhile, the caps that the naive environmentalists and technophiles foresee would initially be so low that these three things would happen immediately. The lawyers would move in to defend the polluters (including governments, who are among the worst polluters) and tie up any attempt to enforce the ‘punitive’ scheme for decades. Remember, ExxonMobil still hasn’t paid for the Exxon Valdez disaster.
I’ve illustrated the cognitive dissonance between the two groups with the graphic above.
At this seminar, this was the elephant in the room. Everyone learned about the scheme, and nodded, but just about everyone knew, deep inside, that this was far too easy a plan to be workable.
At root, both sides have a story in their heads, consistent with their own worldview, and they can’t conceive of any other story. On the one side, the story is all about business-as-usual continuing forever, under the auspices of the oxymoron of ‘sustainable growth’, with minor tinkering as needed, self-regulated and governed by the market.
On the other side, the story is about money from excessive pollution being spent on innovation that will allow us to rise to the challenge of climate change and radically shift from non-renewable to renewable energy in a generation.
The problem is that, while these two stories are close enough that they can, with a bit of nudging, overlap, they are both fantasies. Neither is rooted in reality. The stories that are rooted in reality, like George Monbiot’s Heat, like Jim Kunstler’s The Long Emergency, and like Pierre Berton’s The Great Depression, are so different from the stories that all of us have been brought up to believe, that we cannot imagine them, cannot conceive of them as being true. The Great Depression couldn’t really have been that bad, and it could never happen again, could it? The Long Emergency is a cautionary tale, an exaggeration like 1984, right? Heat is a deliberate hyperbole designed to shake us out of our apathy and stir us to at least try to make Kyoto work, isn’t it?
But they’re not. It is not these three stories of what has been and what is to be that are fiction. It is the stories that we have taught ourselves to believe (because it is easy and because it requires no dramatic action on our part) that are fiction. Alas, it is only when you read and study a lot more than most people have either the time or inclination to do, that you realize this. Most of the world is not yet ready to stop believing their fantasy stories and realize that books like Monbiot’s and Kunstler’s and Berton’s are not ‘what if’ stories, but ‘what was and what will be’ stories. We are not yet ready to acknowledge that continuing to behave and think the way we do, day after day, with or without carbon trading schemes, will lead unquestionably to the desolation of the Earth and the end of our civilization.
I have come to grips with the fact that we do what we must, and that by the time we realize what we must do to save our beleaguered planet and ourselves, it will be far too late. It is not in our nature, or in the nature of any creature, to behave otherwise than as we do. We are preoccupied with the needs of the moment. We have never been otherwise, and we are not wired to be otherwise, no matter how the fervent believers in an emerging global human consciousness deny it.
I said little at the seminar. There didn’t seem any point. But I did listen and nod when, afterwards, all of the attendees I spoke with confessed to some cognitive dissonance, some deep-seated doubt, and told me that it is their fears for the world we are leaving our children and grandchildren that makes them want to believe, yet fills them with nagging doubt, and a growing dread. Our instincts are shouting to us. But we are not yet listening. The elephant is still in the room, and we’re beginning to sense itspresence, but we can’t, and won’t, see it.
Other Writers About CollapseAlbert Bates (US)
Andrew Nikiforuk (CA)
Carolyn Baker (US)*
Catherine Ingram (US)
Chris Hedges (US)
Dahr Jamail (US)
David Petraitis (US)
David Wallace-Wells (US)
Dean Spillane-Walker (US)*
Derrick Jensen (US)
Doing It Ourselves (AU)
Dougald & Paul (UK)*
Gail Tverberg (US)
Guy McPherson (US)
Jan Wyllie (UK)
Janaia & Robin (US)*
Jem Bendell (US)
Jonathan Franzen (US)
Kari McGregor (AU)
Keith Farnish (UK)
NTHE Love (UK)
Paul Chefurka (CA)
Paul Heft (US)*
Post Carbon Inst. (US)
Richard Heinberg (US)
Robert Jensen (US)
Roy Scranton (US)
Sam Mitchell (US)
Sam Rose (US)*
Tim Bennett (US)
Tim Garrett (US)
Umair Haque (US)
William Rees (CA)
Archive by Category
My Bio, Contact Info, Signature PostsAbout the Author (2016)
--- My Best 100 Posts --
Preparing for Civilization's End:
What Would Net-Zero Emissions Look Like?
Why Economic Collapse Will Precede Climate Collapse
Being Adaptable: A Reminder List
A Culture of Fear
What Will It Take?
A Future Without Us
Dean Walker Interview (video)
The Mushroom at the End of the World
What Would It Take To Live Sustainably?
The New Political Map (Poster)
Complexity and Collapse
Save the World Reading List
What a Desolated Earth Looks Like
Giving Up on Environmentalism
The Dark & Gathering Sameness of the World
The End of Philosophy
The Boiling Frog
What to Believe Now?
Conversation & Silence
The Language of Our Eyes
Cultural Acedia: When We Can No Longer Care
Several Short Sentences About Learning
Why I Don't Want to Hear Your Story
A Harvest of Myths
The Qualities of a Great Story
The Trouble With Stories
A Model of Identity & Community
Not Ready to Do What's Needed
A Culture of Dependence
So What's Next
Ten Things to Do When You're Feeling Hopeless
No Use to the World Broken
Living in Another World
Does Language Restrict What We Can Think?
The Value of Conversation Manifesto Nobody Knows Anything
If I Only Had 37 Days
The Only Life We Know
A Long Way Down
No Noble Savages
Figments of Reality
Too Far Ahead
The Rogue Animal
How the World Really Works:
If You Wanted to Sabotage the Elections
Collective Intelligence & Complexity
Ten Things I Wish I'd Learned Earlier
The Problem With Systems
Against Hope (Video)
The Admission of Necessary Ignorance
Several Short Sentences About Jellyfish
A Synopsis of 'Finding the Sweet Spot'
Learning from Indigenous Cultures
The Gift Economy
The Job of the Media
The Wal-Mart Dilemma
The Illusion of the Separate Self:
Did Early Humans Have Selves?
Nothing On Offer Here
Even Simpler and More Hopeless Than That
What Happens in Vagus
We Have No Choice
Never Comfortable in the Skin of Self
Letting Go of the Story of Me
All There Is, Is This
A Theory of No Mind
The Ever-Stranger (Poem)
The Fortune Teller (Short Story)
Non-Duality Dude (Play)
Your Self: An Owner's Manual (Satire)
All the Things I Thought I Knew (Short Story)
On the Shoulders of Giants (Short Story)
Calling the Cage Freedom (Short Story)
Only This (Poem)
The Other Extinction (Short Story)
Disruption (Short Story)
A Thought-Less Experiment (Poem)
Speaking Grosbeak (Short Story)
The Only Way There (Short Story)
The Wild Man (Short Story)
Flywheel (Short Story)
The Opposite of Presence (Satire)
How to Make Love Last (Poem)
The Horses' Bodies (Poem)
Distracted (Short Story)
Worse, Still (Poem)
A Conversation (Short Story)
Farewell to Albion (Poem)
My Other Sites
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons License.