There is nothing new about climate change science

The tragedy of the common Co2 emission in a historic context

Lloyd’s pamphlet

In 1833, the English economist William Forster Lloyd published a pamphlet which included a hypothetical example of over-use of a common resource. This was the situation of cattle herders sharing a common parcel of land on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze, as was the custom in English villages. He proposed that if a herder put more than his allotted number of cattle on the common, overgrazing could result. For each additional animal, a herder could receive additional benefits, but the whole group shared damage to the commons. If all herders made this individually rational economic decision, the common could be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all.

William Forster’s pamphlet is as relevant today as it was in 1833. The common has grown to the entire planet, the cattle herders are now represented by countries and the cows are carbon dioxide emissions. The key differentiator is that unlike the cattle herders, we can no longer plead ignorance. Most people now accept that climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions is good science. If you are not able to keep temperature rises below the 2%, then the effect of climate change will be significant to a large proportion of the global population.

How are we going to achieve this? Well actually there is no fundamental reason why all countries could not move away from carbon emitting technologies. Alternatives exist in the form of renewable energy supplies, synthetic fuels which are required to power transportation where electrification is not suitable and electrification of all other transportation methods.

So why are we not moving faster? There are a few factors which must be considered. The minority who still reject climate change science although small are very vocal and have the backing of some carbon-based industries. The transition away from fossil fuels requires a large amount of capital investment, which by its nature will take time. There are still some technology challenges relating to the storage of energy and the intermittent nature of renewables which still must be overcome. There are less well-off countries, who have low carbon emissions relative to size and have abundant resources of carbon-based fuels. These countries are in the process of rapid industrialisation and feel it’s necessary that the exploit the natural resources as industrialised nations did during the Industrial Revolution.

It should probably be argued that the burden of cost needed to protect the common should sit with those nations which have benefited the most from historic fossil fuel exploration. Where countries are starting the process of industrialisation, we should offer help guidance and support to ensure that industrialisation process is completed with zero negative effect on the environment.

The shift away from fossil fuels also provides additional benefits. As most of the world’s population now live in urban areas zero emissions technology also deliver zero airborne pollutants.  Currently one in six deaths have air pollution as a factor, so less pollution means less deaths.