- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I think Romm is correctly arguing the consequences, but gets the remedy partially wrong because of class bias.
Who buys expensive hybrids? Wealthy people with money to spend 30,000 on a new car. But is that car more environmentally correct? Perhaps compared to an SUV, but what was the environmental cost of earning the money to buy either the SUV or the hybrid? Meanwhile, some of the cheapest cars get the best mpg, and don't have heavy metal batteries either.
I've had these same arguments with wealthy environmentalists on biodiesel. I pointed out that there wasn't enough waste cooking oil to fuel everyone's car (and in fact now theives are stealing it from restaurants due to short supply). Inevitably, running your biodiesel car takes cooking oil of some poor person's table. Technology fixes that exclude class-conscious economics are counterproductive to the environment because they undermine political support.
We need rationing. But you can't ration equitably without cap and trade. I'm not saying that all cap and trade systems are equitable (the sulfur scheme is not), but these trade systems CAN be equitable. Distribute the credits to the EVERYONE. Romm wants to let rich people, who consume the most, off the hook, plus have the government spend big bucks designing cars for them. That's class bias and is counterproductive to solving the very real climate crisis.
Similarly, carbon taxes MIGHT help the poor IF the government spends the money on reducing their burden.
Romm has it muddled: economically rewarding conservation will bring about conservation technologies OR reduced use. Simply creating more technologies is a tried and failed approach to environmental problems.
