******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
Fiddling while the world burns -- the Swedish experience with the carbon tax by Frank Arango, Seattle Workers' Voice The average global temperature is now estimated to be one degree Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels, with two-thirds of the warming having occurred since 1975. The primary cause is human activity releasing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, with carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) the biggest culprit. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been issuing assessment reports that have painted a nightmarish picture of what the world will be like with more warming, and called for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by mid-century. But for all that, global carbon emissions hit record levels in 2018, with UN Secretary-General António Guterres warning in December that meeting a target of 1.5 degrees C warming is an "impossible" task. And he added, "It is hard to overstate the urgency of our situation. Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption." *(1)* But despite the UN recognizing the dire situation, it continues to push the same failing market measures that the CVO has long exposed. One of these is the cap and trade system *(2)*, which may reduce emissions where it's in effect, but not nearly enough. For example, the biggest gas emitter in Europe, Germany, has been in the European cap and trade system since 2005. Yet it's extremely unlikely that it will meet its 2020 and 2030 reduction targets. *(3)* Another market measure the Communist Voice Organization has dwelt on is the carbon tax *(4)*, which has been in effect in numerous countries and British Columbia for many years, and which is heavily pushed by everyone from the World Bank and IMF, to Washington Governor Inslee, to major oil and coal companies, to mainstream environmental groups. Now carbon taxation is regressive, i.e., the working people and poor pay a higher percentage of their incomes than the rich do, and the polluting corporations can pass on their tax costs by raising prices. This caused the French people to rise in the powerful "yellow vests" movement last year, which beat back President Macron's attempt to increase the French carbon tax. But does the carbon tax meet its environmental goals despite its regressive nature? For many countries the answer is obviously no. For example, Norway has had a carbon tax since the early 90s, with a current rate of $64 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions on the energy industry, and drivers paying 53 cents extra for a gallon of gasoline. But after 18 years emissions from road traffic were ***up*** 25.8 per cent from 1990, and Norway's overall gas emissions had ***grown*** by 3.4 per cent! *(5)* So let's look at Sweden, the country where the carbon tax is the highest in the world *(6)*, and where it is claimed to be a big success. Sweden implemented its carbon tax in 1991 at a rate of $100 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions. That was several times higher than anything now proposed or in effect in North America, and the Swedish rate is now $168 per ton of carbon dioxide. The result is that over a period of some 28 years emissions have been reduced by a little more than 25 percent. Thus, to reach its goal of reaching what it calls zero net emissions by 2045 (26 years from now) it will have to reduce emissions much, much more rapidly. *(7)* Now the Swedish government talks as if everything is fine and that it will still meet its goal. Is that believable? Let's consider the following: --Sweden's emissions reductions leveled off in 2014-15, and have now begun to slightly increase. *(8)* --The United States today generates 63.5 percent of its electricity with fossil fuels, and the world 66 percent. Sweden, however, only generated around *three* percent of its electricity using fossil fuels in 1991. *(9)* Thus, it was relatively easy for Sweden to shrink this source of emissions. But it has not been easy to reduce emissions from transport, which the Climate Minister says now account for a third of Swedish emissions. *(10)* They're down only five percent in the 19 years years since 1990. The government talks about improving infrastructure for electric car use and expanding and improving rail networks to discourage flying, but it has been talking about such things for years now. So it seems unimaginable to me that Sweden will reach its 2045 emissions goal. What's more, with UN officials warning that climate disaster that will occur if zero net emissions is not achieved by 2050, it's notable that with the highest carbon tax in the world it will have taken Sweden 54 years to reach what it calls zero net emissions in the unlikely event it does so. Of course Sweden can further squeeze the masses by raising the tax and otherwise playing with it, but it's almost 2020 and we don't have time for that. Besides being regressive, it's too slow. The issue is that cap and trade and the carbon tax are Reaganite/Thatcherite/neo-liberal *substitutes* for needed regulation and planning of the economy. But the capitalists globally have been following the neo-liberal dogma for 40 years, and they continue to do so despite the fact that the climate crisis is going to increasingly infringe on their profit-making. Thus, to blast them out of this path to catastrophe is going to require building a mighty environmental movement that demands direct regulation and planning of the economy now, while capitalism still exists. Furthermore, if this regulation and planning is not going to be done behind closed doors and for purely capitalist interests, we must demand that there be openness and mass involvement in everything. And we should work to build a working class trend in the environmental movement, a trend that consistently demands that the well-being of the masses is central to all environmental planning, and a trend capable of organizing mass struggles to bring that about. Notes: (1) https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/31198-guterres-climate-action-can-have-e normous-social-and-economic-benefits?format=pdf (2) See, for example, http://communistvoice.org/39cKyoto.html (3) https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/201 70320_uba_greenhousegasemissions1990_2016_first_estimate.png?itok=QSNCl 8EF. In fact, while a number of European countries have both cap and trade and the carbon tax, they've all been failing to meet emissions targets. See, for example, https://cei.org/blog/report-finds-all-european-union-countries-failing-paris-climate-t argets (4) See, for example, http://communistvoice.org/42cCarbonTax.html (5) See https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/statistikker/klimagassn/aar-forelopige/2019-0 6-03 and https://www.tnp.no/norway/panorama/greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase-in-nor way (6) See https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/background-n ote_carbon-tax.pdf (7) "Zero net emissions" by 2045 is actually a fudge number because it includes 15 percent being covered by carbon offsets. But the history of carbon offsets is that they can result in ruining the environment, including releasing huge amounts of gasses. For example, under cap and trade offsets have been given for planting palm oil plantations. But to plant these plantations often requires destroying the natural forests. This destroys the habitat for many species that may be rare. It destroys the livelihoods of people who depend on the forests for their way of life. It destroys the forests as natural carbon sinks. And, what's more, it often results in huge amounts of methane being released from peat lands. The latter is why Indonesia is the world´s fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases (8) https://www.newsghana.com.gh/swedens-greenhouse-gas-emissions-still-rising/ (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Sweden https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 world http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Generation-by-Energy-So urce#tspQvChart (10) See https://www.thelocal.se/20170202/sweden-presents-new-climate-law-and-zero-e missions-goal <> (From the Sept. 11, 2019 Detroit/Seattle Workers' Voice list) --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
