Opponents of Emissions Regulation Seek Free Pass on Harm to Human Health
 Printer-friendly
|
 Email article |
Related subjects: Carbon Emissions, Climate Change, Diplomacy & Politics, Economy, Energy Supply, Environment & Ecology, Eva Scherson, Global, Opinion, Renewable Resources, Sustainable Development, U.S. Economy, U.S. Environment, U.S. Politics Comments Off
Big business interests have come out in fierce opposition to the proposed EPA regulation of emissions that contribute to the greenhouse effect, and the fundamental destabilization of global climate patterns. The opponents of new regulatory measures allege such regulation would unduly hamper the ability of businesses responsible for the emissions to profit from their existing business model. Supporters of heavy investment in carbon-based industries are, without any pretense otherwise, seeking a free pass on harm to human health.
The logic of the EPA’s finding that carbon and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health is not ideological, is not meant to unlevel the marketplace or punish innocents. It is rooted in science that the US Supreme Court has accepted as definitive proof of a direct link between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the destabilization of climate systems and the threat that destabilization poses to human health and the long-term wellbeing of society.
The position of some in industry and in the investment markets —that there should be no regulation and that the threat of economic collapse should be used to scare policy-makers (both at the EPA and in Congress) into refusing to follow the Supreme Court’s order that carbon and other greenhouse-effect-related emissions should be regulated as a threat to human health— is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to avoid taking responsibility for activities that are harmful to human health.
There are very real costs associated with the activity that produces high amounts of the affected GHG. Those costs have been met, up till now, by consumers and by society broadly —the government and other interests in the private sector who have to deal with the impact of GHGs on the climate—, while the principal emitters of GHG have not incurred any direct additional cost in association with producing the emissions that are affecting the rest of society. Regulation simply means the harmful activity must be scaled back, so that the risk of harm to society is minimized; it is not a direct tax or fine for emission.
The arguments made by these interests have come together in what is being called the “climate change skeptic” viewpoint. They appear to believe they can avoid taking responsibility for the harm caused by their actions by arguing in the mainstream press that the entire interdisciplinary field of climate research is engaged in an elaborate hoax, with the sole purpose of causing harm to their businesses. Some of these interests are now spending huge amounts of money, through front groups and “astroturf” scientific panels, to persuade legislators that climate change is not proven science.
This has been a long-running quest, over multiple decades, to smear and discredit the thousands of scientists whose work informs the global consensus on climate destabilization. The skeptics’ arguments are, however, falling short of the mark. This publication reported in June of this year that:
What no climate change skeptics seem able to do is demonstrate with scientific evidence that the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human industry is somehow of no importance. That is in part because all the scientific data relevant to that question indicates that in fact, human industry since the 18th century has emitted ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (and other ‘greenhouse effect’ inducing gases), and that the amount is now so substantial that the ecology and the climate of the entire planet are changing as a result.
The argument that regulating carbon emissions is “dangerous” because it would “bankrupt” the United States or “would inflict GDP losses of $9.4 trillion” is based on a number of inherently flawed assumptions. The most prominent is that inaction on climate destabilization is justified by the money we can make in the meantime. Evidence suggests otherwise, and the losses already being felt around the world from climate-related phenomena, including crop failures and drought, are 1) already intolerable and 2) not included in the calculations of such skeptics.
The next flawed assumption, also prominent in all such references to “GDP losses” is that GDP is an adequate measure of the wealth of a society. GDP measures only the exchange of currency for goods and services. It does not provide vital information like the actual quality of life of the average individual (which cannot be derived by dividing GDP by population) and the value of service provide by nature for which no currency is exchanged, but whose value may far exceed anything produced by human industry.
For instance: what would it cost to not only produce rainfall across the entire planet, but also direct the atmosphere to maintain basic rhythms and function on its own, without constant planning and upkeep? As it turns out, we don’t have enough GWP (gross world product) to cover the costs. What about surface temperature? Stopping the advance of deserts? Guaranteeing the biodiversity needed to derive noticeable benefit from harvesting “miracle” cures from evolving plant and animal species and their peculiar qualities?
The real shape of the climate “debate” right now is not about whether “elite” scientists accept “dissenting” views. Those alternative opinions on the founding hypotheses of climate destabilization science were discredited in the 1990s, when most of the world was not paying attention. Despite the massive amounts of hard empirical evidence produced during the 2000s, the climate skeptics are still making the same arguments, in hopes of preventing the entire international community from taking any action to prevent further harm to humanity.
Business interests insist that the “marketplace” will be harmed. This is a disingenuous argument. The marketplace does not determine whether or not GHG are dangerous. If, in fact, they are dangerous, then it is understandable that players in the marketplace who depend on producing GHG in order to make money will be concerned their revenue streams might be hampered by limiting GHG emissions. But to make the argument that caps are bad for business is to admit that the first part of the argument, whether or not GHG are harmful, has already gone against you.
And it has. The US Supreme Court, the Congress, the White House and the EPA, all already accept that the science has been proven, and the law of the land is that regulation —to protect innocent human life and the stability of civilization itself— must follow. So, what are the laws of the marketplace? Well, adapt or perish. That’s what the biggest players always like to argue: don’t regulate us, don’t force us to compete with small players, force the small players to adapt, innovate, or perish.
That GHG emitting businesses have, until now, enjoyed a fabled and privileged position, able to make massive profits with little acknowledgement of the global harm caused by the very activity they are engaged in, is prologue, and it was a privilege. That now, markets where that failure to observe the complex reality of GHG and their effects was the rule are being “corrected” by new regulatory measures simply means that businesses reliant on burning carbon-based fuels need to adapt.
If they are deserving of the immense rewards of the marketplace, the windfall revenues that come year after year with burning carbon-based fuels and emitting GHG, then they will be able to demonstrate their unique value by innovating, getting better, adapting to the new market environment. It is not the responsibility of the billions of people who may suffer serious harm from their activities to help them do business in the manner they feel is easiest. They should become competitive and learn to operate without harming humanity at large.
| Printer-friendly
|
Email article |
CafeSentido Partner Sites: