Carbon emissions are expected to post their biggest drop in more than 40 years

The International Energy Agency will announce this month that global carbon emissions are expected to post their biggest drop in more than 40 years. The reason behind this drop in carbon emissions is the decrease of industrial activity and trade around the world due to the economical downturn as well as some government’s action. IEA expects to see global carbon emissions fall 2.6 percent this year. However, an improving economy is expected to increase domestic carbon dioxide emissions 0.7 percent next year. According to the Energy Information Administration, Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of energy sources account for 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.


This news shows how human activity is decisive to climate change and how humans have the solution in their hands to make the economical changes needed. Economically as well as scientifically we have the tools available to resolve the problem of global warming or at least lighten the effects. We must start efficient production of renewable energy we will have to stop subsidizing the fuel industry and have the price of fossil reflect his real cost including health, environmental and military costs. Fuel prices must go up; our market economy is driven by short term-financial incentive while an alternative economy based on renewable energy would require efficient inter-temporal resource allocation. The massive investments made in fossil fuel infrastructures, the low cost policy of government to encourage industrial growth must be shift to break the unsustainable and uneconomically path of fossil fuel dependence.


The obligation and responsibility of governments is to signed international treaties to reduce emissions and create global institutions to deal with the emergency. There is a terrestrial dimension to climate change that we can’t ignore any longer. Human well-being is better served by controlling the accumulation in the atmosphere of Carbone dioxide and trace gases than letting climate becoming out of control.


Climate refugees, tribes in Amazonia, Inuit women infect by PCB and so much more challenges are to be addressed immediately. Global climate challenges are waiting for our policies to adjust. History will judge our actual governments on their action today because the actual changes made to climate by humans are unsustainable and are directly related to human health and well-being as well as the survival of future generations.


References:
Emissions of CO2 Set for Best Drop in 40 Years. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/earth/22emissions.html
Harris, J. (2006). Environmental and resource economics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Berg, L.R., & Hager, M.C. (2009). Visualizing environmental science (2nd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Our children will have to live in a world without fuel so why are we still drilling?

We a choice, offshore oil drilling near coastlines and drilling in general  or a clean energy economy that would stop global warming. A sustainable and clean future instead of pursuing false solutions that jeopardize our natural richness. The solutions for our future can't be analysis with short-term projection based on cost/benefit analysis.


The issue of drilling involved not just risks but also total incertitude on the after drilling, "placing a price tag on the environment involves serious ethical and philosophical consideration". Natural capital is a large part of the national economic wealth and should be counted like human capital in economical analysis.


Drilling along Florida coast is analyzed by his supporters with a cost-benefit analysis approach. The problem of this calculation is that the benefit is only the one of oil companies and they are at the opposite of the people benefit.  The monetary benefit of oil companies and the long term benefit of people and future generation is not the same.The cost of drilling for an oil company is a matter of monetary investment, for people the cost is not measurable in dollar but in social, health, ascetic, educational, environmental and natural heritage parameters. As a scientific fact, “the reserve of oil and gas will be largely depleted within 50 years”


The oil companies can drill and make us pay the high price of any non-renewable declining commodity, a clean cut benefit for them. Oil companies do not even create good jobs for the local community because they consist on short-term job market just for the time of the drilling operation. At the opposite, the environmental damages are not going to be eliminated as fast as the jobs or the drilling platform, environmental damages can be irreparable if animal species or coral reefs are harmed. The failure to add the price of environmental damages of oil drilling to the cost/benefit analysis is part of a short-term approach that can cost unknown monetary sum to future generation.


In economics, "value is considered to flow from our desires and preferences", thus, the question is, are we talking about desires of oil companies and preferences of politicians for their campaign funding? Or, are we analyzing people and future generation health and sustainable future?   It seems inconsistent to alter our assessment of long-term environmental problems based on current interest rate fluctuations arising from financial markets that have little to do with the environment”.




References:
Harris, Jonathan (2006). Environmental and Natural resource economics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin