Max Tallberg
The current ecological crises constitute a serious, existential treat to humanity. All organic life on Earth – at least in its current forms – might come to an end if sufficient action is not taken against these threats early enough. Other important work such as the battles against inequality and populism will hold no importance if ecological crises are not met with strong enough means; populism and inequality will only gain strength because of migration and conflicts caused by the uncontrollable ecological crises. The radical depletion of biodiversity could eventually lead to the death of all organic life on our planet, and that humans could solely keep it artificially alive at best. A planet such as this would be enormously poorer. The scenario contains its own existential risks as well: For example, the food production is jeopardized, if the population of pollinators keeps decreasing.
Later, we might find ourselves in a situation where the effects of climate change must be diminished afterwards. In practice, this could mean anthropogenic cooling of the climate by sucking carbon oxide out of the atmosphere or massive afforestation projects for example. It is already probable that we humans are forced to correct the situation to steer it to a more sustainable direction. With significant global cooperation there is a possibility to reach a situation in which the whole world would invest an enormous amount of joint resources in solving ecological crises.
The best solution, however, is reached when emissions are reduced significantly and fast enough today. The currently employed EU emissions trading system is one example of measures that are trying to achieve this goal and it already covers over 40 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union. Of the greenhouse gas emissions of Finland, for example, it covers little less than half. In the trading system, a market price is calculated to the emissions. Every enterprise involved must obtain a permit for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted. Thus, the enterprises are encouraged to diminish their pollution as the less one pollutes, the less one pays for it. In practice, this works in such a way that enterprises purchase their emissions rights in auctions where the price is determined based on the rules of supply and demand.
The trading system works also so that the greenhouse gas emissions are reduced always where it is the most affordable. If the emissions rights obtained from the market are more inexpensive than one’s own actions that reduce the emissions, it is more reasonable for one to acquire the emission rights from the market instead of reducing one’s own emissions. In turn, if the reduction of emissions is more favourable than acquiring emission rights, it is more advantageous to reduce the emissions oneself.
So far, however, the EU emissions trading system has been insufficient: there has been too many emission permits, their prices have been too low and free emission permits have been handed out far too generously. Additionally, these permits have been used in the gimmickry of the markets: for example, with the aid of various futures contracts certain enterprises have protected themselves against price increases and thus fossil energy has been kept competitive. Yet, there is light at the end of the tunnel as the emission trading is expected to function more efficiently: the emission prizes are increasing, and the emissions included in the trading systems have decreased around 40 percent.
Moreover, over consumption is one of the major issues related to the ecological crises. Earth Overshoot Day refers to a date when the consumption of the world’s citizens has exceeded Earth’s capacity. After this date it is no longer possible for the Earth to produce renewable natural resources nor absorb the greenhouse emissions. In Finland, this date was the 10th of April last year in 2021 whereas the Overshoot Day of the entire world has been reached around July-August in recent years.
Another, more courageous means to battle against climate change – that also could be one solution for overconsumption – would be the assessment of a personal carbon credit to each and every citizen of the world. This credit should be equal to all. The carbon credit would be calculated such as to determine how much an individual is allowed to consume and cause emissions without hindering an ecological and sustainable development on Earth. In this scenario, certain trade options could be considered where a rich individual could purchase part of the credit of a poorer, less emissions causing individual. This would benefit both parties as the poorer individual would benefit financially in this arrangement whereas the wealthier individual would not have to cut his emissions with an unrealistic amount. Between the parties, some sort of global climate bank could be imagined. Through this agent people with less emissions could be granted a social allowance similar to basic income that would be cut back if a person caused more emissions. The payments of a wealthier person could be utilized additionally as a compensation that would finance afforestation projects for example.
However, at the same time the measures described above should be globally just. The people of wealthy countries – that are causing more emissions – should participate actively in solving the ecological problems, since they are ultimately the root cause of these problems to a great extent. This could be achieved if the wealthier countries realized a green transition first and then continued to help developing countries in doing the same. The citizens of poorer countries should not be punished, however, if they, for some reason, failed to achieve a green transition as fast as the wealthier countries.
The concept of a personal carbon credit is in concordance with the values of Global Visions: it would guarantee the same position to every citizen of the world as the emissions caused by different countries and individuals would be treated in an equal and just manner. If the present development is to continue, it is unjust that the people of the developing countries are the ones who will suffer the most from the ecological crises. What makes the situation even more unjust, is the fact that these people are not the ones who have caused the whole situation in the first place with their consumption. Instead, with the income enabled by the personal carbon credit the people of developing countries could improve their lives significantly while the struggle against ecological crises would advance.
The extension of the concept of the EU emissions trading system to cover the whole world is also something that fits the ideology of our association. This would lead to a situation where rules implemented could not be evaded by a single state. At the same time, a global emissions trading system would create a true possibility to control anthropomorphic climate change before we find ourselves in an irrevocable situation.
Sources:
Soininvaara, Osmo. 2020-luvun yhteiskuntapolitiikka. Teos 2021. Helsinki.
Tallberg, Max. A citizen of a new time: A vision of a better world. 2022. www.avisionofabetterworld.net.
Wilkinson, Richard & Pickett, Kate. The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. Bloomsbury 2009. New York.
https://www.tiede.fi/artikkeli/jutut/artikkelit/paastotili_palkitsee_hiilipihin
