Paradox

Kurt's reference to Jevon's paradox reminds me of the paradox of carbon trading. I don't really understand carbon trading and carbon tax, etc, but working on a small hydro-electric project in Pakistan, I encountered this odd concept and began to understand something I learned a lot more about this past year. That is, how trends in development are just that and words like sustainable and low-carbon and renewable energy are often understood in very narrow or vague terms, or simply not understood at all.

Here's how I understand carbon trading in terms of renewable energy development. Industry around the world generates carbon and that carbon contributes to the stock of greenhouse gases in the environment. Say there are 100 tonnes being produced at a given time (obviously the real figure is many of orders of magnitude higher). Well, the producers of the 100 tonnes are given a choice, they can either reduce their overall output of carbon or they can pay someone else, in the form of a carbon tax, who is reducing their output of carbon, more or less. The irony of this scheme, however, is that this carbon tax can be used to fund the development of new low or zero-emissions energy generation facitilities, such as small rural hydro-electric plants in developing countries. So let's say the producers of the 100 tonnes pay $10 in carbon tax instead of reducing their outputs by 1 tonne. That $10 can be used to fund new zero emissions energy production.

But in reality, nothing is zero emissions. The development, installation and maintenance of a small hydro facility contributes to carbon emissions. So let's say the new hydro facility generates 1 tonne of carbon. The new net total production of carbon in our hypothetical world is now 101 tonnes. While this is less than if a small coal-fired plant had been built instead of the hydro facility it still represents a net increase. Not only this but the industrial producer has "offset" his carbon production not by paying for reduction somewhere else but by funding a new increase in carbon production. While I fully support the development of rural hydro electric facilities I see this aspect of the carbon tax system as illusory. It claims to do one thing but results in the opposite effect. A paradox.

While I stated in an earlier post that development studies seems to downplay issues around environmental sustainability, it does provide insight into the paradoxical nature of the climate change agenda more generally. As with so many trends in development, efforts to combat climate change often reveal an "add climate change and stir" approach. In other words it's business as usual with programs around climate change bolted on. Furthermore, mitigating against climate change is often talked about more in terms of shielding populations and geographies from the effects of climate change rather than actually taking steps to slow and ultimately reverse it.

On a personal note I should mention that I'm now living in London and have recently started a job with Crown Agents, an international development consultancy. More on that later, perhaps.

Jordan (London)