The original frugal, green living magazine, founded in 1976. Natural Life is trusted
by readers around the world who want to learn how to create a greener,
healthier, more self-reliant lifestyle for themselves and for their families.
       |
from
Natural Life Magazine, May/June 2007 One of the arguments being put forward by some politicians against taking action to drastically reduce greenhouse gases is that such action would be economically devastating and ineffective. However, that argument is being proven incorrect. On one hand, maintaining the status quo will have a devastating financial cost. According to British economist Sir Nicholas Stern, cutting worldwide greenhouse emissions to acceptable levels will cost just one percent of global GDP by 2050, while failing to do so could cost up to 20 percent – amounting to trillions of dollars. On the other hand, clean energy and other sustainable practices will actually have an economic benefit. Economic Boom A new report from Colorado shows that if the state doubled its renewable energy by 20 percent, it would add $1.9 billion to its gross domestic production. Democratic Governor Bill Ritter says, “Increasing our use of renewable energy would bring over 4,000 high-paying, high-skilled jobs and over $570 million in wages paid to our state.” The economic boon would come from increased manufacturing, installation and operation of renewable electricity production. Pricing Carbon The economics of carbon is the subject of a new climate protection plan by Friends of the Earth Canada and Corporate Knights Magazine. By placing a tax on carbon, the plan would harness over $20 billion per year to fund a low-carbon economy, while meeting Kyoto deadlines. The plan starts with reducing the emissions from the few hundred industrial facilities which generate most of the country’s emissions. Consumers would also share in the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There would be an increase of 10 cents per liter at the gas pumps, which would generate $3.7 billion per year. Carbon taxes on direct emissions from heating fuel for homes would generate approximately $2.2 billion per year. These funds would be directly applied to financing initiatives such as retrofits, less polluting transport, renewable power production and geothermal systems for home heating and cooling. In total, a family might see a cost of $450 to $900 a year. Rationing Carbon During the Second World War, citizens in many countries experienced rationing of many consumer items, from gasoline to sugar. And now, in the UK, the idea of rationing is being applied to personal climate change solutions. Groups of people are coming together to reduce their individual and collective carbon footprints…and, in order to highlight the seriousness of the climate change problem and the urgency of finding solutions, they are calling these attempts “carbon rationing” and the groups “carbon rationing action groups” or CRAGs. The phenomenon began a few years ago when two colleagues decided that government and industry weren’t doing enough to tackle the problem. Knowing that making lifestyle changes can be difficult, they decided that working together with others would make it easier to reach their goal of reducing their personal greenhouse gas emissions. This first CRAG has spawned a number of others across the UK, supported by a website and a start-up guide. First the members of the CRAG set themselves an annual emissions target or carbon ration. Most groups seem to be using 4500 kilograms of CO2 per person, which was based on the need to reduce the average UK carbon emission rate by 10 percent annually. Then the members keep track of their emissions over the year by keeping a record of their household energy use and private car and plane travel. Finally, at the end of the year, they take responsibility for any “carbon debt” (i.e. emissions over and above their ration) that they have built up. All carbon debts are paid into the group’s “carbon fund” at an agreed rate per kilogram of CO2 debt – usually four or five pence (nine to 11 cents) per extra kilogram. The fund is then distributed as agreed by the members of the group. CRAG member Andy Ross told The London Observer that his group was already seeing Kyoto-type negotiations. “It underlines how difficult it will be [for countries] to cut emissions if we can’t get 10 people to agree across a table,” he said. Wendy Priesnitz is the Editor of Natural Life Magazine and a journalist with over 30 years of experience. She has also authored nine books. Visit her website. |
|
||
|
