PROVOSERENDE (MEN SANN) FORSKNING OM DEN GRØNNE EUROPEISKE REISENS MENINGSLØSHET

Siden 2012 har europeisk luftfart vart underlagt EUs kvotesystem for klimautslipp.

Det har  kjipe implikasjoner for de som frivilig gir avkall på en reise med fly innen Europa (muligens erstattet med en buss eller togreise), med den velmente intensjonen å redusere ens eget klimafotspor. Slik oppoffrelse har nemlig null (kanskje til og med negativ) klimaeffekt.

Ny forskning av Dr. Grischa Perino, University of East Anglia, har formalisert dette resultatet i artikkelen ”Private Provision of Public Goods in a Second-Best World: Cap-and-Trade Schemes Limit Green Consumerism.” Her er et utdrag (side 3-4):

The decision to fly or not no longer has any substantial impact on total GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions because emissions from aviation within the EU are included in the EU ETS. Any additional emissions caused have to be reduced elsewhere and vice versa.

A cap-and-trade scheme with full coverage would make private contributions to the public good via consumption or life-style choices (green consumerism) impossible. However, none of the real world incarnations of cap-and-trade are anywhere near full coverage. The EU ETS for example focuses on aviation and big stationary sources such as electricity production and energy intensive industries. All other sectors including road transport, agriculture and all with a low energy intensity are not covered. The latter make up more than half of GHG emissions in participating countries.

Incomplete coverage requires that intrinsically motivated citizens are aware of the offsetting effect and which emissions are covered by the cap-and-trade scheme and which are not. Otherwise they will misallocate their efforts to contribute to the public good. Consider the example of aviation.

A green consumer might opt to travel by bus instead of by plane in order to reduce the GHG emissions of her trip. This has the desired effect if that trip takes place in the US. However, in the EU, taking the bus is likely to increase total GHG emissions compared to the flight. The simple reason being that any additional emissions caused by the flight are fully offset (potentially even twice if the individual chooses to buy additional offsets offered by most airlines when buying tickets) while those of a bus journey are not.

Many recommendations by government agencies and NGOs on how to reduce one's carbon footprint are inappropriate in the EU. Reducing the number of flights, installing energy efficient light bulbs and many other recommended actions have no or a much lower impact on total GHG emissions and depending on the alternatives chosen might actually have the exact opposite effect.

Les hele artikkelen her. Det er jammen ikke lett å være miljøvennlig nåtildags. Hadde det ikke vært enklere å implementere ”first-best” miljøøkonomisk politikk som internaliserte alle negative miljø- og klimaeffekter, slik at prissignalene som konsumentene forholdt seg til inkluderte alle relevante kostnader?