We were lucky enough to attend a premiere of the new production on Human Environmental Impact (since it goes beyond global warming), produced by Leonardo Di Caprio: The 11th Hour. Very interesting piece. I would have appreciated more strong data for those more skeptical (such as me). Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying the fact of global warming... What I'd like to know is how much of it is due to human action (after all, this is not the first episode of warming and we understand very little of the facts that provoked the previous ones). I guess this "elasticity" measure is key if we are to agree on what to do now. Unfortunately the film doesn't offer many solutions. It relies a little bit on blaming corporate capitalism, part on the consumers (at last! somebody that points the finger clearly) but then relies on technology, carbon tax and a more "concious attitude" from "the people". To get connected with our environment.
Let me play the cynical part here: Corporate Capitalism just goes where the people wants them to go. You want to pay more for a "environmental friendly product" it's your call. The problem is that I don't see the "consumer" willing to pay more consistently. Furthermore, this is not about paying more... it's actually about consuming less. Now there's no way to solve that while keeping today standards. You may tax carbon heavily, but that necessarily means that (a) some things (including food) are going to be more expensive (that's the way markets signal the need of reducing consumption), this means people on the margin will starve and therefore there's no way the poorest of the world will accept that, or (b) the richest voluntarily accept to pay more (consume less) themselves to allow the rest of the world to get their "share" on polluting. The only way that "competitive behaviours" (i.e. more environmentally balanced ones) will rise is by imposing real costs on the polluting ones, and bearing the consequences. And this requires a willingness to sacrifice, especially among the richest countries that I don't perceive possible. They still believe this is just about separating a 20% of the tons of rubbish they produce each day. To avoid the usual "free rider" problem we need quite a strong LEADERSHIP and a real will to SACRIFICE.
If not, the system will find a way... probably one we won't like.
Let me play the cynical part here: Corporate Capitalism just goes where the people wants them to go. You want to pay more for a "environmental friendly product" it's your call. The problem is that I don't see the "consumer" willing to pay more consistently. Furthermore, this is not about paying more... it's actually about consuming less. Now there's no way to solve that while keeping today standards. You may tax carbon heavily, but that necessarily means that (a) some things (including food) are going to be more expensive (that's the way markets signal the need of reducing consumption), this means people on the margin will starve and therefore there's no way the poorest of the world will accept that, or (b) the richest voluntarily accept to pay more (consume less) themselves to allow the rest of the world to get their "share" on polluting. The only way that "competitive behaviours" (i.e. more environmentally balanced ones) will rise is by imposing real costs on the polluting ones, and bearing the consequences. And this requires a willingness to sacrifice, especially among the richest countries that I don't perceive possible. They still believe this is just about separating a 20% of the tons of rubbish they produce each day. To avoid the usual "free rider" problem we need quite a strong LEADERSHIP and a real will to SACRIFICE.
If not, the system will find a way... probably one we won't like.
Entradas
