Market panacea

I believe economics is about making a living. Economic activities logically and inevitably involve the environment. That's why I coined the term "ergecology," a subject steadfastly avoided in the United States and other backward regions.

The UN's IPCC report on climate change forces everyone concerned about environmental degradation to reconsider what we do. Barring miracles (which only the religious believe will rescue us), the human race faces a future that ranges between widespread daily discomfort to disease, disability and death. We have been living on Mother Nature's credit card, but, like all such arrangements, the more we use it, the tighter are the chains that bind us to our creditors. The world is about to turn upside down once again, making slaves of masters, as depicted on the wheel of Buddha.
 

American business and financial leaders are suddenly running about, trying to start a greenhouse gas trading system. They say a market in greenhouse gases will solve the problem. They definitely do not want regulations that cap emissions. The Bandit is on their side, restating his opposition to emission controls today. There are reasons for the new found interest in an emissions market. Most immediately, companies that dump millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere won't have to give up their bad habits: they will be able to buy emission credits on the open market. Then, Wall Street's financial vultures will make yet more fortunes brokering the emission credit market. The basic idea of that market, like all Capitalist markets, is that money floating about will attract a solution to the problem. In the meantime, no one really has to do anything about the problem except get richer.
 

There are other emissions markets, such as the one in sulfur, which has helped  to reduce acid rain. But, while waiting for improvement, thousands of ponds and lakes have died, forests and wildlife have been decimated, and there is still acid rain. Maybe all those losses were acceptable in order to sustain the desired levels of economic activity, but we will never know the fact of the matter. I don't think anyone has bothered to study the economic effects of alternative methods such as direct controls. Methods and decisions are adopted by the usual consortium of political and economic elites, whose main concern about the environment is that it is a harrassing nusiance. Many of our leading businessmen feel the EPA regulators are just blood suckers who make it difficult to make any money. This attitude is at the bottom of the on-going failure to clean up toxic wastes. Consequently, those holding such views must believe that environmental protection is optional.
 

It should not be a surprise that I consider reliance on trading greenhouse gas credits an invitation to disaster. The bad news for Capitalists is that global climate change is not optional, cannot be bought and is not on their schedule. After decades of refusing to acknowledge the science and act responsibly, Mother Nature has taken charge. All that people can do now is respond when nature calls the shots. There is no foreseeable change in this balance of power, and refusal to obey will only make things worse faster. Thus, in self defense, the appropriate strategy for H. sapiens is to directly control greenhouse gas emissions in a way that removes the threat ASAP.

The question an impatient Mother Nature poses to those who love money is this: your money or your life. If you don't get it, please recall Clint Eastwood's famous line: "Go ahead, Make my day!"