To save the earth, start by saving it from phony saving-the-earth profiteers

Sir, Martin Sandbu writes about “how a conflict of interests over climate change — something that really is humanity’s common challenge — aligns with and reinforces a deeper culture war dividing centrist urban elites from system-critical populists… [So] we have missed the potentially much greater obstacle of political polarization in the age of populism” “The burden of tackling climate change must be shared”, November 5.

Hear hear! This is exactly the type of issues and challenges we must learn to tackle, if there’s going to be any hope for us to survive as the society we always dreamt of, or avoid turning into that society we always dread, something that in fact means even more than our survival on earth.

But, when Sandbu speaks about what “reinforces a deeper culture war dividing centrist urban elites from system-critical populists”, I disagree, because the real hard core divide in this case is between those expected to pay for to help save our planet, and those who expect to profit from those efforts.

But Sandbu also refers to a remedy to that, when he mentions, “the carbon ‘fee and dividend’ approach advocated by climate scientist James Hansen [which] would levy duties on fossil fuels and redistribute the revenue in equal per capita amounts to all residents”

That’s precisely in line with what I recommended in a letter published in FT on how Mexico City should go about in order to reduce its serious pollution problems.

If Emmanuel Macron, perhaps hand in hand with Canada’s government that is also thinking about higher carbon taxes, decides that all revenues from taxes on fuel, and similar, are to be shared out equally among all citizens, that would set an example to other nations, that would at least be worth some ten Paris agreements.

Sir, let me be cleat about it. If I am going to help to save the world, by paying higher carbon taxes, I want all of it translate into a clear market signal that saves the planet, and not into something which unduly enrich those promoting saving the world, or those profiteering on the process.

@PerKurowski

It suffices for one single nation to set a high tax on carbon emissions and share out its revenues among all its citizens, to really begin saving our pied-a-terre.

Sir, Martin Wolf, whether it is true or not, is absolutely correct calling out: “It is five minutes to midnight on climate change”. We have no right to ignore that threat, even if its possibilities were low. “Inaction over climate change is shameful” October 23.

Wolf asks and answers: “So what needs to change? Net global CO2, methane and nitrous oxide emissions would need to fall to zero” though he also observes. “This is very unlikely to happen. That is no longer because it is technically impossible. It is because it is politically painful.”

It should not be! If only one nation went ahead and placed a big tax on carbon emissions, and shared out all resulting tax revenues equally, unconditionally, among all its citizens that would be a game changer… many would be politically pressured to jump aboard saving the planet that way.

Why does it not happen? Quite simply, the redistribution profiteers, those who profit from negotiating conditions, won’t touch with a ten feet pole an unconditional pay like this, less it spreads to other areas of their franchise, for instance by means of a Universal Basic Income.

Do I know? I come from Venezuela where nothing similar to its current tragedy would have happened had its oil revenues been shared out equally to all Venezuelans, and yet that possibility is rarely mentioned by the opposition, because there’s always an infinite pool of aspirants to be the next redistributors on turn.

Paris Accord? To me it was just a great photo-op for redistribution and fight against climate change profiteers that would do little to improve the chances for my grandchildren to live better.

More than a year ago the Climate Leadership Council proposed a carbon tax along the lines of what I describe here… seemingly they were silenced!

PS. For Mexico City, to combat pollution, I proposed just that..

@PerKurowski

The worst we could do, is to treat a structural unemployment as a temporal one.

Sir, Gillian Tett writes: “If there is one thing on which almost all economists agree, it is that digital technologies are performing many jobs once done by humans… [and so there’s an] urgent need for a bigger policy debate about how to prepare workers for this new world”, “How robots make humans indispensable”, December 23.

Absolutely, but in this respect, if we face structural and not temporal unemployment then, as I wrote in an Op-Ed in 2012, “We need worthy and decent unemployments”.

For that we must rid ourselves of the negative bias that current unemployment benefits carry. The best alternative in town seems to be a Universal Basic Income, namely the unconditional payout of a fixed amount per month to all citizens, whether unemployed or not. That would help the economy by keeping up consumer demand, and signify a good stepladder for everyone who wants to reach up to a temporary job, a.k.a. a gig job.

How to fund it? There are many alternatives but, in the context of this article, a payroll tax on robots, driverless cars and similar substitutes for humans, seems the way to go, since that would also create a more level playing field when competing for jobs.

Who will be against it? Naturally the redistribution profiteers as that decreases the value of their franchise.

PS. In my homeland I have for decades wanted my nation's net oil revenues to fund such UBI, in this case a variable one, so as to help free us citizens from living under that servitude that 97% of all the nation’s exports going to central government signifies.

PS. In other places UBI and carbon taxes could be a great way to harmonize the incentives for the fight against environmental problems and the fight against inequality.

PS. Ask Trump, what’s worse losing your job opportunity to outsourcing, migrants or robots? If robots, where does he suggest we build the wall and who’s going to pay for it?

@PerKurowski

Mexico needs carbon and petrol tax, which revenues are all redistributed by a Universal Basic Income mechanism.

Mexico needs to align incentives on pollution

Sir, Jude Webber writes about the horrible pollution caused by the excessive number of cars in Mexico City (“Corruption and car fumes clog up the capital”, Notebook, May 26) and proposes that eliminating corruption in emission testing could be an important part of solving this. Fat chance! As a Venezuelan, I know that this is not a viable route.

Ms Webber writes: “Mexicans are snapping up cars as fast as the world’s seventh largest producer can churn them out . . . Domestic consumption is the engine of economic growth so there is no official incentive to dissuade people from buying Mexican-built cars and associated products such as petrol.”

That’s really not the case. You must build up the right political and economic incentives to correct for it. If Mexico imposed carbon tax, petrol tax and a strong traffic toll system, and made sure all the revenues from it were immediately returned to the economy by means of a universal basic income, you would face a different reality. Then you would have aligned the incentives for pollution control and the fight against climate change with the fight against inequality, and that makes for a very powerful alliance.

Standing in the way, besides initial protests from car owners, would be the redistribution profiteers who would miss a chance to make political and economic capital. Just as in Venezuela.

Published in FT

VW & emissions & controls: Fines for allowing itself to be tricked, should not become a revenue source for governments

The more I read about the Volkswagen affair the more convinced I become of that, what really does not bring anything to the table in terms of justice, economic efficiency or even sustainability, is having VW to pay huge fines to a government that hosted such inefficient emission controllers who allowed themselves to be tricked by clearly immoral but also quite ingenious engineering tricks.

On reading Richard Milne’s “Wolfsburg fears fallout from VW scandal” October 12 this is what I would suggest:

Decide on a substantial amount to fine Volkswagen for their misbehavior, but make it pay all that fine by issuing (green) shares in Volkswagen, to all who bought its diesel cars and to all of its employees. That way you do not weaken a company, or a city, while at the same time, presumably, you introduce among VW’s shareholders a wish for a better corporate behavior, so as not having their shareholder participation further diluted.

And then, just how you use hackers to assist you in building safety features for increased cyber-security condemn, all the Volkswagen engineers responsible for the misdeeds, to social work, by developing emission controls that work.

PS. This is somewhat similar to the fines on banks, which directly hurts their lending capacity, precisely when we need it the most.

@PerKurowski ©  J

World/Germany: Don’t fine Volkswagen for the benefit of those who should have controlled emissions better. Be smarter.

Sir, I refer to Chris Bryant’s “New VW chief signals cost cuts to pay for emissions bill” October 7.

If I were Volkswagen’s new chief executive, I would not accept, laying down, to “slash costs to help to foot the bill for the diesel emission scandal” No way! I would strengthen Volkswagen by making a counteroffer the world could not resists… because of its implications.

I would offer the authorities, in lieu of any fines related to The Scandal, to give to each of VW’s 600.000 employees, and to each of 11.000.000 of VW’s diesel car buyers, for example €1.000 in Volkswagen preferred "green" shares, convertible into ordinary VW shares.

And, if the offer was accepted, I would not waste one € correcting wrongdoings on the past, but instead duplicate the € 11,5bn research budget of last year.  But, that’s just me.

I dare you to find one environmentally concerned, who is not a statist, who would not agree with me.

PS. Volkswagen, don't delay your answer... the faster the better.

@PerKurowski ©  J

Perhaps Paris should have a little tête-à-tête with Volkswagen about what to do about embarrassing pollution ratings.

Sir, Adam Thomson discusses the embarrassment to Paris its lousy environmental readings could cause when, for a UN conference in November, “some 40,000 politicians, delegates, scientists and environment experts will descend on Paris to discuss what is billed by many as humanity’s last hope of saving the planet from irreversible climate change”. “Dark and dirty days in the city of light” September 23.

Perhaps Paris should have a little tête-à-tête with Volkswagen to see if it has any ideas about what could be done.

Or, in these days when Volkswagen has so utterly destroyed the credibility of emission controllers, Paris could perhaps just discreetly let out something like: “Our emission readings are sincere”

Oops… should those who have responsibility for supporting tourism in big cities also need to have tête-à-têtes with App developers like Plume?

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-vw-volkswagen-emission-control.html

@PerKurowski

FT, can you help me understand the practical significance of different internal carbon prices?

Sir, Pilita Clark reports that Spain’s Inditex fashion group, owner of the Zara brand, says it has a US$30 a ton internal carbon price even though EU benchmark carbon process are around $US9. “Companies accelerate carbon pricing” September 21.

I have no idea whether those prices are high or low so it would be interesting reading what Zara will not be doing with a price of US$30 compared to what it would be doing if the price was $US9.

I ask, because when I announced to my family we will from now on be using an internal carbon price of $US60, twice that of Zara’s, my kids were properly impressed, “Way to go dad!" But then they came back and asked me what that meant for them… and I don’t have a clue… and I hope I don’t have to scrap my outdoor grill now either. 

@PerKurowski