Monthly Archives: November 2010

Everything’s Amazing, until you illuminate it

We live twice as long as people only ten generations ago. We are richer, much richer than anyone alive two generations ago. Or in other words, it once took weeks, months, or years to make it from sea to shining sea. Now, flying from California to New York means “you watch a movie, take a dump, and you are home.”

Not if, when

But flying is more than watching movies. It also comes with real pollution. Lots of it. A flight from New York to Delhi creates more carbon pollution than the average Indian produces in a year. Individually that has little impact on the planet. Collectively it makes all the difference.

It’s  no longer a question of if, it’s when vast coastal areas will be under water, if we don’t change course soon. We are distorting the global nitrogen cycle beyond recognition. Our oceans face multiple assaults from collapsing fisheries to ocean acidification and often still unknown consequences from oil spills and other toxins.

It may well be both. Many things are getting better most of the time, largely due to awesome technological innovations. Yet we are also facing enormous challenges of unprecedented proportions.

Nightfall or Singularity?

Ian Morris's magnum opusStanford historian Ian Morris argues in his impressive magnum opus, Why the West Rules—for Now, that we face a choice. But the choice is not what you think.

It’s not about educating American children and investing in American ingenuity to fend off the inevitable ascendancy of the “East.” It’s about educating American children—all children—and investing in global innovation to ward off something much bigger: the possibility of planetary mayhem akin to total nuclear annihilation, “Nightfall.” His words, not mine.

Levels of innovation—”progress”—are so rapid, so unprecedented in human history that the question is not whether we will be making cross-country flights even faster or more convenient than they were only thirty years ago, or whether China or India will build faster planes than Boeing or Airbus. We don’t know what the frontiers of travel itself will look like thirty, twenty, or ten years from now. The question, according to Morris, is how to avoid the entire system spinning out of control.

The happy opposite of Nightfall is “Singularity,” a state where everyone, all humans, live at unprecedented levels of wealth, and in harmony with each other and the planet.

That’s quite a tall order. The question is how to get there.

Make Wikipedia history

First and foremost, it’s about channeling human ingenuity to work for rather than against us. That comes down to finding governance systems to guide market forces in the right direction.

The single most important step is to make everyone accountable for their full actions. “Privatizing profits and socializing losses” has its own Wikipedia page. That page, for now, only talks about the financial crisis as a classic symptom of the misguided mantra.

The planet is in exactly the same boat. Profits accrue to each and every one of us, personally. The losses are spread across everyone—you, me, your children, my unborn children.

You don’t have to believe in Morris’s stark choice between Nightfall and Singularity—although after reading his book, he will likely have convinced you—to realize that the planet will be getting worse unless, and only unless, that Wikipedia entry becomes a historical footnote.

Posted in Technology / Leave a comment

Gung-ho about cap and trade

“Why are you so gung-ho about cap and trade? Don’t you realize it’s a corporate takeover of the atmosphere?”

I’m paraphrasing here, but this was the gist of an audience question I got while moderating a panel on Getting Carbon Market Governance right from Day One at the International Anti-Corruption Conference on Friday. The rest of the discussion was a frank exchange of ideas on how to ensure a workable, transparent carbon market. More on that later. For now a quick response to this question because I think it gets to the heart of why we do what we do. Why are we so “gung-ho” about cap and trade?

We ought to be polluting less because it’s the right thing to do, not because someone else limits pollution and hands out allowances to companies. Well, yes. If everyone woke up tomorrow and decided that global warming pollution was bad and that we ought to stop dumping billions of tons a year into the atmosphere, far be it for me to stop them.

Things aren’t quite that easy. We clearly ought to be moving toward a more coherent climate ethic. One of our panelists, ethicist Don Brown, made exactly this point. The question is how to get there.

No volunteers, please

Volunteerism simply won’t do. Misguided collective action got us into this mess. Properly guiding collective action is the only way out. That means polluters ought to pay. Pollution must not.

There may be academic debates to be had on cap-and-trade versus carbon taxes, but fundamentally the best way in the real world is to put a firm limit on pollution. It worked for combating acid rain in the 1990s. A version of it works for combating overfishing. And the EU has shown that it works for carbon on a large scale.

Carbon markets around the globe

Global carbon markets operating, likely, and under consideration.Cap and trade might be “dead” in Washington at the moment, yet it is clearly alive and well and spanning the globe: from existing systems in the EU, the Northeastern US, Alberta in Canada, and New South Wales in Australia, likely systems in California, South Korea and Japan, to systems under discussion or in planning stages in Mexico, Chile, Brazil, and Russia—not to forget China, which will likely at least experiment with cap and trade as part of its 12th five-year plan, in place starting in 2011.

Good for the environment, good for business

Will there be business interests pulling for cap-and-trade? Hopefully. The task is to guide a $5 trillion-a-year fossil-fuel-based energy sector into a cleaner, leaner future. There better be—and there will be—plenty of money to be made in the greener economy.

Yet far from being a corporate takeover of the atmosphere, a well-designed carbon market is a way to make polluters pay for the costs they now shove off onto others by treating the atmosphere as a free dumpster.

Posted in Markets 101 / 7 Responses