Monday, September 7, 2015

Buying fossil fuels in order to keep them in the ground


One of the biggest obstacles to cutting back sharply on carbon-based fuel consumption lies with the economic interests of the producing companies and countries. One approach to dealing with this and undercutting the opposition is to simply buy the fuel (principally coal and oil) and leave it underground.
    All, really, we need to do is negotiate the price. Something that should take into account the potential loss of jobs (perhaps these jobs too are bought out as part of the deal), and the fact that the fuel cannot be burned. Still, this is a problem that is far easier to solve than the imposition of a world-wide system of regulation of consumption.
    A supply-side solution. And one far more certain to work, if the current owners can be forced by the overwhelming majority of the rest of us to sell. (Here lies the controversy, in the principle of fair compensation and eminent domain. But if saving the planet cannot be considered a compelling reason to invoke this eminent domain, then what can? Wars have been fought over less, and might be fought again.)
    It is an approach that has been tried by organizations like the Nature Conservancy when it comes to the preservation of other natural resources. It is an approach that could also be used to preserve the rain forests (we could buy them too). It is an approach that conservatives could not object to (the ultimate free-market solution). And an approach that seems worthy of consideration, whatever else we might do.

See also: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worlds-fossil-fuel-reserve-must-stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/665405?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 

3 comments:

  1. Simpler even than CCL's Carbon Fee & Dividend. And more than just a first step. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is important that the fair market value placed on such resources factor in the economic impact of climate change, i.e. if these fuels were to be burned and if those harmed by this action were also to be fairly compensated, what would the fuel be worth? So the price paid should lie somewhere between this value and the value in today's market--someplace between these values that is politically viable and practically possible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ecuador tried that. They asked for $5.2B to preserve the rainforest from the oil companies. Nobody, not one country, not one Donald Trump, came forward with an offer, so now they're going to have to sell the oil leases.

    ReplyDelete