Blame the Problem, Not the Person

Blame the problem, not the person?

The Senator John Curtis represents me in the United States Congress.  He’s a Conservative in a state that produces its share of oil, gas, and coal.  He is also a self proclaimed environmentalist, and has been among the most effective leaders building coalitions of Conservatives in favor of various environmental causes.  

He is famous for saying, “Blame the problem, not the person” in many diverse arenas, and it’s a really useful tool for lowering tension, building a big tent, and brainstorming solutions.  I applaud him.

Of course, in the environmental arena, it is easy to blame oil, gas, and coal producers for their current and their historic role as polluters.  After all, if we don’t blame them, what or whom else can we blame for climate change?  I’ve decided to attempt a forensic examination following Senator Curtis’s admonition.

Let’s assume the “problem” is too much greenhouse gas in the air, which leads to historically rapid climate change.  Let’s vilify THAT instead of the producers. Then let’s figure out how to fight it.

Let’s figure out what are all the specific human-generated reasons there is too much greenhouse gas in the air.   There are lots of different GHGs in the air including CO2, CH4, N2O, and a host of fluorinated chemicals.  Let’s assume we need a forensic path for all of these, but for the moment, let’s focus on the CO2.  

According to our friend Google Search, the key human-caused sources of CO2 buildup in the air are “Burning Fossil Fuels,” “Deforestation” (which reduces nature’s ability to absorb extra CO2), and “Industrial Processes.”  

Forensic paths should be followed for Deforestation and Industrial Processes, but let’s focus in on “Burning Fossil Fuels,” which is probably the most significant factor causing climate change anyway.  Let’s also include wood in this category because burning it has a similar (or worse) effect on CO2 concentrations in the air.   

(Allright, remember, focus on the problem, not blaming…)  So, who does the burning of fossil fuels and wood?  Well, fossil fuel companies might do some burning in their production processes.  Other companies (including agriculture and trasportation) burn fossil fuels in their production processes.  Governments and other institutions burn fossil fuels to run their operations.  And notably, consumers burn fossil fuels.    

In short, almost every participant in society burns fossil fuels.  I personally am sitting in a house warmed by a gas heater, and my electric vehicle draws electrons produced by coal and natural gas.  

Back to Senator Curtis’s model then.  A significant enemy contributing too much CO2 in the air is COMBUSTION, which creates heat when you combine a carbon atom with an oxygen molecule to form gaseous CO2 in the air.  Collectively, to reduce CO2 buildup in the air, we need to radically slow the combustion of things like oil, gas and wood.  

This may be where Senator Curtis and I part ways, and in fact perhaps I part ways will all sorts of environmentalists.  Senator Curtis might argue we should stop at acknowledging that combustion is the problem rather than taking the next step.  Environmentalists might argue we should completely blame (and tax) the entities that PRODUCE the fossil fuel.

I MYSELF am toying with the idea of (first of all stopping government subsidies that support fossil fuel production, that goes without saying, but) “blaming”–more specifically “taxing”--those who “combust” fossil fuels.  This includes industry, institutions, individuals and governments.  

Let’s consider the effect on the price of a gallon of gas if a consumer were fully responsible for the co2 they combust.  When burned in a gas tank it creates approximately 20 pounds of co2 in the air.  Then, let’s consider the retail price of a durable carbon credit from (for example) my company, Woodcache Corp, which is about $175/metric tonne, or 2250 pounds.  This cost is divided across 2250 pounds / 20 pounds, which is 112.50 gallons of gas.  $175 per tonne/112.50 gallons is a fully loaded tax of $1.55 per gallon.  

In the American mind, where retail gas might range between $3-$5 per gallon, this is a lot of money.  My friends in other parts of the world may already be dealing with higher prices and similar taxing schemes, so it may seem less shocking.  ON THE OTHER HAND, it’s not orders of magnitude out of the question, right?    

So, for the policy wonks out there, how about a consumer combustion tax policy that works like this:

• Implement the tax at 10% increments over 10 years, so 15 cents more per year.  

• Negotiate the price of durable carbon removal down from $175.  A reasonable goal would be to eventually reach something like $125 for durable credits.

• Vehicle manufacturers have ten years to steadily make automobiles more fuel efficient, fill out their EV lines, and bolster their efficiency, thus making the tax effectively less expensive for consumers.

• Consumers have up to ten years to make investment decisions about how and whether they choose to combust, like buying more fuel efficient vehicles and electrifying vehicles.

• Governments can create special programs that subsidize people and organizations against this tax, or help them reduce their combustion.  

This all may seem hopelessly naive, especially the consumer tax component.  Which politicians would support this?  IMHO, only politicians with electorates who believe the problem of COMBUSTION is bad, and ought to be reduced or eliminated.  

So maybe Senator Curtis is right.  Blame the problem of COMBUSTION, not the person.