The forms of capitalism that prevail worldwide today have brought much progress to mankind, but at the cost of a fatal misconception: that the resources available in nature are practically free. The latest figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published on 9 August, 2021, reveal the disastrous consequences of our actions: the authors now expect global warming of about 3°C by the mid-century. The goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2°C or even 1.5°C will thus be missed by a wide margin. Climate scientists are therefore calling for a reduction to net-zero C02 emissions, alongside a reduction in the production of other greenhouse gases.
Since the signing of the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, political decision-makers, companies and individuals all over the world have repeatedly been warned by climate scientists about the dangers of global climate change. And although, especially in Switzerland, a generally growing environmental awareness can be observed, political promises or good intentions by companies and consumers have proven to be insufficient. Global CO2 emissions have increased by more than 50% per year since 1992 and experts expect further annual increases in the coming years.
Critics rightly point out that emerging economies such as China and India are estimated to have quadrupled their emissions over this period. They and the USA are now the three countries with the highest emissions. But even countries in the western world often fail to meet their climate targets. Switzerland, for example, failed in its intention to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the end of 2020, compared with 1990 levels.
“We pay for road and rail infrastructure, but not for the consequences of thawing permafrost, melting glaciers, mudslides or flooding caused by extreme climate events resulting from global warming”- Karl Schmedders
From the perspective of economics, greenhouse gas emissions represent a so-called “externality”. In economics, externality refers to the effects of the production or consumption of an economic good that are insufficiently reflected in the price of the good, or not at all. For example, the production of cement generates large amounts of CO2, for which (most) producers in the world do not have to pay any taxes. Similarly, we emit CO2 when we drive a gasoline or diesel engine car, without having to pay for the side effects of these emissions.
These emissions contribute to global warming in the long run and thus have a negative impact on the quality of life of mankind, but their polluters do not pay for this damage. Take Switzerland for example: we pay for road and rail infrastructure, but not for the consequences of thawing permafrost, melting glaciers, mudslides or flooding caused by extreme climate events resulting from global warming. For this reason, economists also refer to the lack of pricing for such negative externalities as a market failure. This is what led to the gigantic overproduction of greenhouse gases worldwide in the first place.
Now, there are two ways to correct this market failure. Either we build the cost of the consequences into the goods in question, i.e., adjust the market prices. For example, the aviation fuel kerosene is virtually tax-free today. This means that no consequential costs are priced into flights, which warm the climate and thus contribute to damage. One option, therefore, would be to tax kerosene – on the one hand, fewer flights might be made, while on the other hand the tax revenues could be used to alleviate the damage. However, it still seems illusory that the global community will agree on such an approach.
So there is the second way: levying incentive taxes. Switzerland had planned to do this in the CO2 Act, for example with a flat-rate surcharge on airline tickets. However, the law was rejected this year. Apparently, the majority of Swiss residents are not yet ready to take this step. Yet the CO2 tax on heating oil has shown that steering actually works well; It has reduced CO2 emissions from heating in Switzerland between 1990 and 2020 by more than 30%.
Whatever the citizens of a country decide, international pressure may well increase after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its truly alarming figures and force countries to make certain goods more expensive. Switzerland would probably follow this step “autonomously”. It would be nicer if – as a rich country – it would set a good example and do it quickly and independently. We will by no means end up in socialism because of this. Instead, as “good capitalists” we are merely adjusting prices to reflect the effective costs.
This article was originally published in German in the NZZ.
22 April 2024 • by José Parra-Moyano, Christine Legner, Konrad Schulte in Sustainability
Training and fine-tuning AI models requires troves of data, but storing and processing that data is financially and environmentally costly. Here are three ways to address the problem....
Audio available
The link between missed carbon emissions targets and human rights was made this week as a group of Swiss women won a landmark case against their government. What does this mean for...
Criticisms of artificial intelligence’s impact on sustainability are justified, says IMD’s Tomoko Yokoi, but there are important steps that technology companies can take to address the problem ...
28 March 2024 • by Dovev Lavie in Sustainability
Introducing a platform-based economic system that promotes prosocial behavior can help society overcome its greatest challenges....
Audio availableExplore first person business intelligence from top minds curated for a global executive audience