 |
| Nissan Leaf recharging in Paris |
I had a discussion in Australia a few years ago on this very topic: given Australia has $x billion to spend on tackling climate change, how should we best spend it? Not just should it be wind or solar? Or carbon tax vs carbon capture. Where in the world should we spend it?
Given lie limited dollars, shouldn't we think more broadly? Globally?
Given that it's a global problem, where in the world should we Australians spend that $xx billion? I suggested China, just on the basis that it has far larger carbon footprint than Australia. Economics teaches of the decreasing marginal utility of each extra dollar spent. It would have more far more utility — for the world — if spent our limited funds in China. Moreover each dollar would go further in China, given its lower labour and production costs.
Of course that doesn't cut much ice in Oz. Australia and its very active Greens want the money to be spent in Australia, to create new industries and generate new, green, clean jobs. And that’s understandable. It’s just not (arguably) in the best interest of the world. Not the most effective use of our money.
I came across the same argument in the article below. Carbon intensity (amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GNP) in China and India is ten times that in America, Britain or Japan (note: not fact-checked). So it makes much more sense — from the world's point of view — to spend money in those countries, in China, etc, to reduce their carbon intensity, rather than our countries where they will have less impact globally.
Those countries need only import already-existing carbon-reducing technologies. Beijing's new emissions-trading system almost certainly is an attempt to force recalcitrant companies to do this, as much for the sake of general economic efficiency as for any other reason.
Such a transition still will be costly, to be financed either via higher consumer prices on Chinese exports or direct government subsidies. But it's almost certainly cheaper than developed countries' current plans to blow another few trillion dollars trying to invent an entirely new economy to achieve only marginal emissions reductions.
As the author says, though, it's unlikely that that common sense will prevail. Much more likely that $trillions will be spent in the developed west, to relatively small marginal gains. Arguments such as this will no doubt be dismissed as "climate denial" or "avoiding our responsibilities" or some such. Though they are not; they’re discussions about how to use limited international funds.
If we really are — as Extinction Rebellion et.al. keep telling us — in an existential crisis which confronts mankind as a whole, it's more than a pity that can't adopt the most effective solutions, for the world.
Meamtime, let's not forget nuclear! Merkel does her farewells in Washington, her baleful legacy is demolishing a perfectly safe, clean technology. Good one, Mutti…
The Climate-Change Agenda Goes Out With a Bang
ADDED: The article is mainly about how publics from France to Japan are rejecting some climate change initiatives. … Change of strategy needed.
