Carbon reduction: who picks up the tab?

In order to help curb global warming, the UK Government has set a target of an 80% reduction in total carbon emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.  If we are going to reach this target, someone is going to have to pay.  The question is, who should it be?

The Problem
In 2008 the energy sector accounted for around 28% of the total UK greenhouse gas emissions, but it has the potential to become carbon neutral.  The Committee on Climate Change estimates investment costs in the energy sector needed to reduce emissions will reach up to £16bn annually, compared to £2bn average annual investment in the electricity sector in the early 2000s, and the money has to come from somewhere.

So, which groups could bear the cost?  It comes down to four possibilities: energy companies, industry and businesses, taxpayers, and consumers.

Unfortunately, energy intensive businesses and industries are already feeling threatened by the carbon tax, consumers and voters are complaining of being in the “squeezed middle”, whilst 21% of households are already said to be in “fuel poverty”; there is no obvious candidate to bear the investment costs required.

He who uses most, pays most?
Many would argue that a fair way of sharing the cost would be for those who produce the carbon emissions, or the big users of the electricity which created the emissions, should pay for the changes as it is they who are causing the problem.  The cost of the emission reduction schemes could be divided up proportionally based on the quantity of electricity each uses and added to their electricity bills.  This means the energy companies, energy intensive industries and large businesses would initially bear the majority of the cost.

However, it soon becomes clear that this would not be feasible.  Energy companies, industry and businesses need to make money; it is part of the legally binding agreement with their stake holders, and not to do so would spell disaster for the company.  The companies also need to remain competitive within the global market, with the possibility of industry moving abroad if production costs are substantially higher in the UK.  Therefore, any costs associated with changing to become more carbon efficient will be passed on to their consumers rather than affecting the company’s profit margins.  By passing the cost directly on to the consumer, those on a lower income will be more adversely affected as their energy bill will represent a larger proportion of their total income.

Taxation
Perhaps, then, taxation is a better way to pay for the changes needed.  Government taxation brackets aim to alleviate this proportion problem by charging those who buy more, and those on a higher wage, a higher rate of tax.  However, there have already been a number of taxation rises in the UK in the past couple of years, including a VAT rise from 17.5% to 20%, rises in the alcohol duty rate, and the recently proposed “hot food tax”.  The latter caused such a stir in the general population that it was binned before reaching the serving counter.  People become unhappy when they have to pay more tax or pay more for goods and services so the creation of a “Green Energy Tax” would undoubtedly be unpopular, especially if added onto the cost of electricity, and the government strives to please the greatest number of voters, especially around the time of elections.

A problem of time
A major stumbling block for many carbon emission reduction initiatives is the long timescales needed for investment.  Governments only remain in power for four years before another election, and ministers and civil servants change posts, especially over a 40 year timespan.  This means that decisions made by one person can be changed by the next incumbent of the post, unless the decisions are enshrined in law, which is very unusual.  The carbon emission reduction scheme was enshrined in law, but the long timescale proposed for the changes means those making the decisions may be tempted to put off the cost of the scheme until it becomes the next person’s problem.

Private investors are also less likely to be interested in such schemes with too great a period between investment and possible returns, especially if government policy is not seen to be consistent, making returns less certain.

Global warming is a slow process too and the real effects will not be felt until it is too late.  There is also no unanimity among the governments of the world on the need for a cut in carbon emissions, its urgency, or its extent.  Without global consensus and a view of political exigency it is very easy for UK governments to avoid ensuring the costs are met for the carbon reduction schemes if that means making themselves unpopular with voters, or if it means making the UK’s industries less competitive in the global market, especially in the current economic climate.

So the question of who will pay for the changes required to prevent large-scale global warming is not a simple one.  The bill will probably fall to the taxpayer if the target is to be met, but the government then has to decide between a short-term more favourable economic climate or a long-term more favourable global climate.  If the government chooses the planet over the economy, they have the choice of raising taxes further, or moving money away from another area to direct it to carbon efficiency.  Whatever is decided, it affects us all, because we all will pay.

Science specialisation - is it a good thing?

A recent article on the BBC's Point Of View by Tom Shakespeare (Fly, Fish, Mouse and Worm) caught my attention.  The article discusses the "specialisation" of science, for example only studying a single species or a single gene, compared to the broader approach our predecessors took.  Tom argues "synthesisers" are now needed, people who can bring together information from different disciplines or different areas within a single discipline in order to combat larger global problems, such as rapid species loss.

Specialisation is prevalent within the academic community, but it has both advantages and limitations to science.  Most academic subjects are decades to centuries old, with a large knowledge base and many papers and books published on each area.  As time passes, more knowledge is gained and the science advances.  However, the amount of knowledge required to know a subject in depth also increases.  To prevent an information overload, therefore, researchers specialise into one area.

With the dawn of the internet, speed of communication and dispersal of ideas have also increased, with more papers published in all subject areas.  Specialisation allows researchers to stay in touch with current understanding, models or experimental methods.  It also reduces competition and direct overlap between researchers as work becomes unpublishable if another person has already published the same results using the same method.  If each lab uses a slightly different technique, this allows corroboration of results by another lab, whilst remaining publishable.

Single genes or species are often studied to gain a better understanding of a single variable; the results gained through the specilised study are then extrapolated to the form a bigger picture and further our understanding of a very complex system.  By studying a single variable that complexity can be reduced to a manageable set of controlling factors which can then be investigated.  The limitation, however, is that scientists are never certain how far the extrapolation can go before the conclusions become incorrect, with possible unaccounted-for variables coming into play.

On one hand specilisation can make science manageable, but it can also be overly limiting.  By restricting reading to within their direct field of research, academics can be unaware of advances and techniques in another area which may be beneficial.  Communication between different academic subjects can also be impaired by different methodologies, names and acronyms, whilst researchers within a subject may develop a misconstrued idea that their own research area is the most important.  Specialised grant bodies who only award money to researchers directly working in specific fields can also limit scientific advancement by only awarding funding to "fashionable" subjects.  This can result in the clumping of scientists around one small area of a subject and the bottle-necking of ideas, whilst other areas are neglected due to lack of funds.

Teaching and outreach, communicating the science to members of the public, can also be adversely affected by specialisation because a general overview and good background knowledge are required to explain the subject and answer questions.  Those researchers who are too specialised either find this a daunting task, as they try to explain topics not studied since undergraduates, or they do not effectively communicate the information because they fail to provide context and impart a wider understanding.

Many of the greatest problems currently facing the world require collaboration between disciplines, such as flooding, world hunger, species loss and climate change.  Tom, in his article, argues this is where "synthesisers" need to come in.  I tend to agree that people who can bridge the gap between disciplines may be a good thing, but I also think all researchers need to be encouraged to look beyond their field of study and to build new collaborations between departments.  I believe academia is moving down this route, slowly, with a greater push from young researchers for more outreach and open access journals, both of which increase the flow of knowledge and allow access to a wider audience with a wider range of ideas.  I wonder if specialisation may be where some of the resistance to these movements originates, with academics afraid either of appearing to not know enough, or from the idea that someone may steal their niche.  Change is afoot but, as with any ingrained doctrine which has developed over many years, change takes a very long time.

Welcome

Hello!

Welcome to my blog where science covering everything from volcanoes to oil production to climate change will be discussed.

I am a PhD student based in London interpreting environmental conditions 200 million years ago and investigating how those conditions affect what we see now in the rocks and its effects on our understanding of our climate and oceans.

My interests are far-ranging and varied with an overall theme of "The Natural World".

I hope you enjoy my musings.

Naomi