EKOS Communications, Inc.

So, picking up the thread from where I left off in my last blog.

As the recently released "Stern Review on the economics of climate change" makes readily apparent, the time is now to act on climate change. As John Ashton, UK's climate change envoy, warns: "...we need to treat climate change not as a long-term threat to our environment but as an immediate threat to our security and prosperity."(1) His warning comes after pointing out the shocking descent of New Orleans in the immeidate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina which scientific consensus accepts as being spawned and driven to a large degree by climate change. And, we can expect many more of these extreme weather events.

"We need to see the pursuit of a stable climate as an imperative to be secured whatever it costs through the urgent construction of a low carbon global economy," Ashton urges, "because the cost of not securing it will be far greater."(2)

But here arises the immense challenge of bringing about this so urgently needed change. Historically, we have looked to governments to demonstrate leadership on such matters; however, that is less the case nowadays for two reasons. First, many governments have shown themselves to be incapable of building and maintaining trust which is absolutely critical to the mobilization of their citizens. Second, governments have typically relied on investments in hard power (build up of military, police or other means of enforcement) to bring about large scale change.

Does this mean that governments are exempt from doing anything about climate change? Hardly. Their committed and ardent involvement has never been needed as much. However, their approach has to change.

Delightfully, the current challenge of climate change offers governments an golden opportunity to achieve two outcomes through one set of actions.

If they were to shift investment from high carbon to low carbon infrastructure, they could also begin to restore public trust. Of course, the shift has to been done carefully, so as not to lead to market distortions. But this territory is already quite well mapped through the principles and practices of tax-shifting.

Essentially, it involves taxing things not wanted by society while not taxing those things that are wanted. For example, some governments have toyed with the idea of raising taxes on low fuel efficient vehicles while reducing taxes on high fuel efficient vehicles.

Tax-shifting could be used to derive funds from high carbon industries, such as oil and gas producers, and invested into renewable energy technologies such as solar panels, wind or tidal generators or electric cars. Now I don't pretend to fully comprehend this field; however there are excellent resources out there, such as my good friend, Donna Morton, who has advised numerous levels of government on the practicality and desirability of it.

What's critical, however, is that funds are not just invested into research and development, but also in deployment. Too much great green technology still sits on the reseach bench, because the developers lack the necessary financial resources to introduce the innovation into the marketplace. At least this is the case here in Canada.

Even if the low carbon technologies and infrastructure were mass produced, would there be a demand for them? As a number of commentors have noted, perhaps the biggest obstacles to the development and deployment of renewable energies and other green technologies are political and social in nature. There are powerful vested interests who profit from a high carbon path and who actively oppose initiatives that threaten their bottomline. Even among the public, including those who consider themselves ethical consumers, there are reasons for concern.

Ah, but this will have to be the subject of my next blog as I must now turn my attention to other tasks.

For more information on tax shifting and Donna Morton, go to:

Centre for Integral Economics. www.intregaleconomics.org

References:

1. Ashton, John. "World's most wanted: climate change" The Green Room, BBC News. Posted Sept. 8, 2006. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2006 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5323512.stm

2. Ibid