Author: alisonsmith

https://blogs.ubc.ca/landscapesofenergy/importance-of-informative-regulations-automotive-advertising/

Abstract:

I have always been aware of the environmentally damaging effects of the car I drive on a daily basis. However, I have also always had misconceptions about improved automotive based fuel/energy technology. I think this is partly based on the fact that car companies within North America do not follow any advertising regulatory framework. I have explored the ways in which this lack of regulations has impaired consumers decision making. I briefly analyze hybrid/plug-ins, hydrogen fuel cells, diesel and ethanol.

By Alison Smith

It is clear that business-as-usual along side over consumer habits cannot be maintained within our sphere of physical limits. Our economic framework based on continual capital-intensive growth is completely dependant on the use of cheap energy at the expense of human equity and environmental stability. With peak oil extraction either fast approaching or close behind the current decade, the path of energy substitution will ultimately feed the expansion of the social, economic and environmental crises we are already facing. An approach that may positively address these three detrimental issues is energy alternatives. In other words, a primitive breakdown of current energy intensive technologies, as opposed to, enhanced technological substitutes for oil. Ivan Illich essentially forecasts the affects of increased per capita wattage and stresses the significance of rational technologies, such as the bicycle, in his prophetic publication ‘Towards a History of Needs.’ He argues that the loss of rational technologies is apparent when the choice to modernize towards a ‘western’ standard presents its self and in so dependence on energy can rarely be reversed. Due to a present day absolute attachment to energy consumption coinciding with the oil depletion, investment in energy substitution is rabid and has resulted in the emergence of techno-fixes. Claire Fauset’s analytical report, “A Critical Guide to Climate Change Technologies” complements Illich’s conclusions regarding the faults of substitution and the benefits of a socioeconomic reconstruction. Fauset sheds light on the devaluation of alternatives by stating: “A rational solution is impossible because our economic system forces us into irrational short-termist decisions” (Fauset). Advanced technological substitution approaches such as agrofuel or hydrogen promote current levels of energy consumption and ignore the potential of man powered alternatives.

Illich’s concept of an energy threshold – a level of consumption that becomes destructive to society as a whole – correlates fittingly with fauset’s frank ‘right questions’ tactic. We have failed to face the simplicity of our energy crisis because our questions stem from what Illich refers to as “industrial-minded planners bent on keeping industrial production at some hypothetical maximum” (Illich). Fauset challenges western civilizations frame of mind by juxtaposing two angles to similar questions. Within the substitution perspective one would ask “how can people run their cars without oil?” and within the alternative avenue we should be asking “how can people get where they need to go without contributing to climate change?” In essence, rational technologies that rely more heavily on manpower are the only modes –in this case regarding transport- that will not add to social inequity or climate acceleration.

It is important to investigate the false hopes of improving global condition that substitutes emit. Firstly, the implementation of agrofuel has appeared to be “a green fuel that would reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the transportation sector, provide a renewable energy source and rejuvenate rural economies” (Food Secure Canada). When in reality this source of fuel starkly opposes this common misconception. It has been well analyzed and hypothesized that the use of agrofuel on a universal scale will “limit land use and result in competition between food and fuel” (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy). There are two easily detectable concerns with an agrofuel based global economy. The demand for basic crop vegetation, such as corn or wheat, will accelerate and over reach the capabilities of supply. Creating sever food shortages. The other concern relates to the fact that the corps well be yield in regions such as Tanzania or Uganda primarily for export. The investment in the crops are not in support of local energy shortages but are to be diverted from their origins and subsidize the maintenance of high wattage per capita within ‘western’ regions. Hydrogen is the other techno-fix that fits the profile of an energy substitution that will not provide any change in consumer energy judgment. Nor will the current availability of renewable energy sources (wind or solar) be of an adequate amount to mitigate climate change. Therefore a primary energy source of either coal or gas would need to be employed to sustain demand. Basically acting as a fake substitute because the same materials would be used in production and no alteration on emission or consumption levels. Fauset sums up the draw towards irrational technologies by stating, “techno-fixes appeal, in short, to the powerful because they offer an opportunity to maintain power and privilege.”

There is no false hope of contributing to the reduction energy consumption, pollutant emissions or social inequity from the operation of a bicycle. The alternatives insinuated in Illich and Fauset comments of energy, environment and civilization merge with a plea for simplicity. Humble actions such as drinking water from a reusable vessel, layering up in the cold or engaging in a bartering exchange all demonstrate primitive breakdowns of our ‘high-tech throw-away’ western psyche.

Works Cited

Fauset, Claire. “The Techno-Fix Appoach to Climate Chnage and the Energy Crisis.”

Abramsky, Kolya. Sparking a Worldwide Energy Revolution. AK Press, 2010. 301-307.

Food Secure Canada. Agrofuel briefing note. 2010. <http://foodsecurecanada.org/agrofuels-briefing-note>.

Illich, Ivan. Toward a History of Needs. New York: Pantheon, 1978.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “Trade Observatory.” 2007. Agrofuels: Opportunity or Danger? <www.iatp.org/tradeobservatory/library.cfm?refid=102587>.

Critical Response No. 2

By Alison Smith

The second proposal for a transition towards a Steady-State Economy, declared by Herman Daly, is ‘Ecological Tax Reform.’ Daly defines this type of reforms as “shift(ing the) tax base from value added (labour and capital) on to ‘that to which value is added’, namely the entropic throughput of resources extracted from nature (depletion), and returned to nature (pollution). (Daly)” My goal in this response is to explore, more deeply, the implications of Daly’s account for ecological tax reform. And do so, by assessing these implications within a current time frame and in correlation with additional ecological economists viewpoints.

The purpose of this tax shift is to incorporate the environmental costs of products and services into the market price to assist the market in telling the environmental truth. Effectively rewarding environmentally responsible actions, such as reducing energy requirements. As Daly states, these taxes will “internalize external costs” (Daly) and encourage or induce more stringent allocation of natural resources. Daly also notes in his first proposal that pollution is much harder to monitor for taxation than extraction and therefore the onus would be largely placed on extraction industries. Although the industries affected by the tax could simply include the new expenses in their final price, effectively projecting the cost upstream, limits are established and pollution emissions are reduced.

The pressures of increased prices on primary resources tend to encourage investment in sustainable development of infrastructure and or an alteration in consumer habits. Lester Brown, an environmentalist author, writes extensively on global environmental issues and provides relevant examples of Daly’s ecological tax reform in practice. However a clear distinction is apparent between Brown and Daly’s classification of the tax. Daly preaches taxation on “that to which value is added” (Daly) where as Brown, expands this classification to include all “those who contribute to the throughput” (Brown). Browns definition still directs taxation onto reckless primary industries, but also taxes individuals for reckless behaviors. An example of ecological tax reform contributing to sustainable innovation, assessed by Brown, is the London congestion tax. In 2005 an equivalent to $14 was imposed on car entrance into the city centre. The revenue was used to enhance public transport energy consumption and geographic reach. The mission of this congestion tax was to increase public mobility, decrease congestion, air pollution and carbon emissions. Another example is the unprecedented steep tax on newly produced energy-inefficient cars in Denmark. This specific tax “doubles the price of the car” (Brown) and has lead to a virtual extinction of energy-inefficient cars in the region.  Brown does examine cases when taxation is systematically shifted from labor to energy production instead of focusing on individual consumerists. He sites in 1999 Germany adopted a four-year plan to simultaneously reduce individual income tax while implementing a new tax on energy producers. This resulted in a decrease of fuel use by five percent, a commendable reduction, but more impressively the plan “accelerated growth in the renewable energy sector, creating some 45,400 jobs in the wind industry alone” (Brown). Taxation shifts towards resource extraction and deposition, along side taxation towards individuals who contribute to the overall throughput undoubtedly strains the validity of economic reason. In other words, it bluntly asks, does the current process still make economic sense with this ilk of the unfamiliar taxes?

Tim Jackson explores the notion of absolute decoupling, which is the base of “breaking the link between ‘environmental bads’ and ‘economic goods’” (OECD). Jackson states that absolute decoupling “is essential if economic activity is to remain (logical) within ecological limits” (Jackson). The parameters of absolute decoupling relate more to Daly’s industry based taxation. But before I investigate further it is important to clearly define this notion. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development identifies absolute decoupling when “the environmentally relevant variable is stable or decreasing while the economic driving force is growing” (OECD). The motivation of a corporation to continually profit, for example in oil extraction, regardless of these taxes will force greater investment in energy efficient technology and pollution reduction methods, which increase absolute decoupling. Iron ore extraction is an industry where absolute decoupling is not only non-existent but is in a negative value. That is to say, the environmental throughput is greater than the economic driving force. An ecological tax of this particular industry might be the driving momentum for innovation in extraction that could significantly contribute to better resource allocation.

Ecological taxes generate a number of environmentally beneficial results. This brand of taxation exposes the costs of throughput and concentrates these costs to both primary industries and individual contributors. The short-term effect is investment in sustainable development and the long-term effect is the growth of absolute decoupling.

Basing countries over all well-being or success solely on GDP is neither an accurate nor a constructive means of measure. As thoroughly explored by James O’Connor, Marx had acknowledged the ignored variables that fuel capitalism and dubbed them production conditions. Our class is acutely aware that GDP is a poor measure when assessing economic, social and environmental welfare simultaneously. Therefore it would be beneficial to examine the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) as a replacement for the GDP.

O’Connor states, “We need a more refined theoretical approach to the problem of…land and labor,” and in 1995 three economists, Herman Daly, John Cobb and Philip Lawn asserted that the accounting for the GDP was fundamentally misguided and introduced the foundations of the GPI. The major distinction between the two metrics is the categorization of a ‘cost’ and a ‘benefit.’ The GDP measures all production, but does not account for what is required and or demolished for the production. For example, the GDP includes crime as a benefit because the monetary exchange that accompanies property repair, legal fees or medical bills add to the accumulation of wealth and increases the GDP. Additional examples of how social or environmental crisis are valued to the budget of the GDP are natural disasters such as hurricanes or corporate neglect such as oil spills.  The destruction of Hurricane Andrew in 1992 actually increased Southern Florida’s GDP due to development repair and rescue funds. Not only does the GDP mask the break down of social structures and natural habitats and resources, it actually portrays such breakdowns as economic gain.

The majority of North Americans have a misconception about the GDP embedded in their brains. The associations of growth and individual wealth are synonymous with the exponential trend of the GDP (the increasing gradient in the graph.) The concept of what O’Connor calls ‘limits to growth’ is a dominant force in why politicians, economists and citizens alike are not quickly encouraging the use of the GPI. It is apparent that the GPI lacks the ease of calculability of that of the GDP. It is very hard to measure the effects of economic growth such as resource depletion, ecological harm, social destruction and inequalities in a concise tangible denomination. For this reason the GPI for Alberta (created and researched by the Pembina Institute) is expressed in a monetary value, however the parameters of its calculations include 51 indicators of well-being. Where GDP is only 1 of the 51 indicators. The gap between the rich and poor, house hold debt, problem gamblers, obesity, timber sustainability and volunteerism are just a few indicators that contribute to a more balanced and accurate account of societies progress. It is interesting to note that as Alberta’s GPI is leveling out the GDP is continually rises, at the expense of economic, social and environmental conditions.

As much as I personally believe the GPI is a superior metric I still have doubts about how these indicators are actually measured and I am also slightly skeptical of who establishes these parameters of measurement. The information The Pembina Institute offers is exceptionally thorough, and allows access to the methodologies and results to all 51 indicators. However, each indicator is indexed to the GPI standard by different approaches and this makes the metric an extremely complex and dynamic system. The GPI is far more difficult to fully comprehend than all the aspects of the GDP and takes a great deal of time and research to get it initiated. I hope this system continues to expand in popularity because it is a step in the right direction of real accountability of economic expansion.

Graphs and Table source:

Taylor, Amy. “Measuring Progress in Alberta: The GPI.” March 2006. The Pembina Institute: Sustainable Energy Solution. 10 October 2010 <http://www.pembina.org/economics/gpi/alberta>.