Paying the price for carbon dioxide

Would you pay more in order to have glyphosate residues in your pint?

Putting a price on carbon makes people pay for carbon dioxide that they add to the atmosphere (ouch!) and rewards behaviour that reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide (yes, please).

So why not just make people who emit carbon pay for that carbon dioxide and give the same amount of money, the ‘carbon price’, to people who take it out of the atmosphere?

A lot of people make money out of carbon emissions. Oil companies are the main subjects of hatred, but it is the rest of us who actually burn the fossil fuels that keep our homes warm, our cars on the road and planes in the air. The biggest beneficiary is the Government, which gets 53p per litre of petrol, plus another 10p of VAT. It’s like the situation with cigarettes: the Government knew for decades that fags were killing people but the tax per packet was a vitally important source of income, so it was challenging for the powers-that-be to crack down on smoking. Even palm oil, most of which gets mixed with diesel fuel, gets taxed at 53p per litre, but the food industry takes the flak when it’s in a biscuit. Palm oil has replaced hydrogenated fat, which is why heart disease rates are falling.

Organic versus non-organic

Organic farmers increase soil carbon every year: they compost green waste and crop residues; they add manure to the soils instead of chemical fertilizer; they do crop rotations that naturally boost soil nitrogen; they encourage a resilient soil microbiome that also increases soil carbon; they let the land go fallow so natural fertility is rebuilt, which means more soil carbon. An organic farm can capture and store about seven tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare per year.

Non-organic farmers use chemical fertilizers that wipe out the soil micobiome and cause nitrous oxide pollution that is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Intensive animal rearing of cattle and pigs leads to higher methane emissions, another potent greenhouse gas. Herbicides and pesticides are made from fossil fuels and end up as more global warming. Farming is responsible for one third of our annual increase in greenhouse gas levels. Organic farming could cancel out that increase and bring greenhouse gas levels down by a similar amount and we could stop stressing about climate change.

Powerful stuff

So how can we encourage organic farming? How do you encourage anything? Money. Powerful stuff. Farmers love it.

The EU carbon price is just over £90 per tonne of CO2. An organic farmer can capture at least seven tonnes. If they got paid for it, that would be an extra income of £630 per hectare.

A non-organic farmer emits at least two tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year from fertilizer and soil organic matter breakdown. If they had to pay for that (a tax on fertilizers and pesticides) it would cost them at least £180 per hectare.

Every crop is different, but let’s take a look at barley. Let’s say that a barley farmer - whether organic or not - wants to make £1630 per hectare.

An organic farmer gets four tonnes of barley per hectare and can sell it at £250 per tonne; that’s £1000 per hectare. With a CO2 payment of £700 per hectare that adds up to £1700 per hectare gross income. Bingo!

A non-organic farmer gets a higher yield (thanks to chemicals) of six tonnes per hectare. At £250 per tonne that generates £1500 per hectare gross income. But the farmer must pay for two tonnes of CO2 emissions - £180 - so that brings it down to £1320. So to make as much as the organic farmer, the non-organic farmer would have to charge £305 per tonne for barley, an extra £55 per tonne. What brewer will pay a £55 a tonne premium for non-organic barley?

Much barley ends up in beer. If you’re down the pub and a pint of organic bitter is £3.30 and a pint of non-organic is £3.90 would you be prepared to pay more in order to have glyphosate residues in your pint?

Offset the climate mess ...or stop complaining

In September 1993 at Whole Earth Foods we ran a retail promotion called “Eat Organic - Save the Planet.’   This highlighted our increasingly organic range - organic ingredients were becoming widely available.   I recorded a rap. We sent the cassette out to all participating shops. One verse ran: 

 “The weather round the world is getting mighty strange,

As the Amazon rain forest turns into a cattle range

But still you keep on buyin’ all those products that they sell

Eatin’ burgers, drinking coffee, let the Indians go to hell.

Eat organic, save the planet.’

 26 years later everyone’s got their knickers in an almighty twist about the same thing and blame Brazil’s President Bolsonaro for the fires in the Amazon.  Bolsonaro snaps back that he blames the green NGOs.  He’s deluded if he thinks that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF are secretly lighting fires.  But if you asked me who was responsible for this tragedy I would blame the same culprits.

 The idea of carbon offsets has been anathema to these NGOs.  My inbox is full of their urgent requests for funding, promising to campaign against Amazon fires.  None have a credible strategy.  The only viable strategy is one they oppose: clean up the mess!

Back in 1854 Soho in London had a severe cholera outbreak.  A doctor called John Snow cured it by removing the pump handle from the pump at the public well.  People stopped dying.  After that London invested heavily in sewers to separate the liquids (and solids) that come out of your body from the liquids that go into your body.  It became a model for the world.  Otherwise we’d all be dying of cholera.  Nobody minded having to pay to remove the crap that was killing people.  If it was today, you’d have NGOs screaming at people to reduce the number and volume of their bowel movements. 

 Excrement is visible and smellable.  Our carbon dioxide excrement is invisible and odourless. But it is far more threatening to society than a cholera epidemic.  So why do we baulk at the cost of cleaning it up?  We have marvellous tools like trees, soils, pastures, the use of wood in buildings, biochar, peat bogs and salt marshes that can suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and very quickly and cheaply reduce greenhouse gas levels.  So why do the NGOs oppose it?  Here’s their policy, mostly set out around 2008. 

Greenpeace: “allowing forests to become a get out of jail free card for polluters would be extremely bad news for the fight against climate change.’

 Friends of the Earth: “Allowing rich countries to offset their carbon dioxide by buying up huge tracts of forest is riddled with problems and will do little to tackle climate change.”

WWF “We committed to only purchasing offsets from projects which have been certified by the Gold Standard.  The Gold Standard excludes forestry.  Buying forestry offsets does nothing to lessen society’s dependence on fossil fuels to generate its energy, something that is ultimately needed to address climate change”

We have wasted 10 years.  The rain forests burn and we lose 30 football fields of farmland every minute.

 We have to pay farmers and foresters to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  If the global carbon price was $50 tonne CO2 the cost to society would be minimal, about $10 per barrel of oil.   A  hectare of rain forest would be worth $500 a year.  That’s a heck of a lot more than anyone makes grazing cattle or growing soybeans.  Brazil has been cleaning up our shit for several decades now and we’ve never paid them a penny for it.  We make the CO2, they clean it up.  We refuse to pay them because a few worthy NGOs play right into the hands of the climate change deniers by opposing the market for offsets.  If we did pay for carbon removal we’d all be  eating organic food and have more trees.   We’d stop using peat.  We could still make progress on wind and solar but meantime we would have more biodiversity, purer water, healthier soils and cleaner air.  Would that be so terrible?  If you don’t want to pay to clean it up then don’t complain about the mess.

Carbon Tax

I love fossil fuels.  After food and sex they are just about the best thing that has happened to humanity in all our history.  More than William Wilberforce of Abraham Lincoln, they helped us transcend the need for slavery, creating energy from machines to replace forced labour.  This led to the libertarian regard for human rights and freedom that makes the times we live in more blessed than any other period in human history.  We must never go back to the bad old days of not having cheap energy.   But fossil fuel abuse is a transgenerational form of child abuse – we waste them now and our grandchildren pay the price in flooding, starvation and war.

Back in 1841 my great great grandpa Lars Doxtad, arrived from Norway and started chopping down trees in Wisconsin.  Thousands of other pioneers like him cleared the massive forests of the Mississippi river system to create the American Midwest.   80% of the trees were gone by 1920.  In 1927 came the great Mississippi Flood.  Water levels were 27 feet above the flood line.  Instead of replanting the trees, the Government dredged deeper channels and built levees, or raised banks, all along the Mississippi, to carry away flood waters infuture.   In 1933 came the Dust Bowl.  There were no trees to hold down the soil.  When Lars Doxtad first put his plough to the soil, the level of soil carbon in the Midwest was 100 tonnes per hectare.  Now it's 5.  The other 95 tonnes of carbon as organic matter either washed down the river or blew into the air as carbon dioxide gas.   Nearly half the increase in greenhouse gas levels since 1850 has came from deforestation and farming. This process of human ignorance, which began by cutting the trees in the upper Euphrates above Sumer and sparked the flood legend of Noah, just goes on an on.  It happened in Egypt, Babylon, Mohenjo-daro, China, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Ukraine - with the same disastrous results.  Can we avoid repeating the mistakes of our ancestors?

Farming can save the planet almost singlehandedly – of course we need to reduce fuel consumption, eliminate waste, eat less meat and insulate our buildings, but farming is the magic wand that can solve our climate problems at a stroke

Industrial farms are the biggest greenhouse gas emitters in the history of farming.  Although they only produce one third of the world’s food, they contribute most of the  .

Rodale research shows that organic farms sequester 3.7 tonnes of CO2 per annum and industrial farms emit the same amount.  That’s a difference of 7 tonnes – organic farmers support global greenhouse gas reductions almost equal to the emissions of industrial farms.  Take it worldwide: if everyone farmed organically then we could take 7.2 Gigatonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere every year, easily cancelling out the 5.5 Gigatonnes of increase in CO2 that is steadily making the planet more uninhabitable

Oh, yeah, I forgot - organic food is ‘too expensive.’  For F**k’s sake!  Help me somebody! What is really, really expensive is having to deal with floods, droughts, massive crop failures, flooding of the world’s coastal cities and human extinction. 

The solution is so easy it makes me want to weep.  All we need is a carbon tax that prices carbon emissions at the future cost of dealing with climate change.  That’s about £150 per tonne.  Actually, we probably only need to tax it at £35 per tonne to get the behavior change that would solve our problems

What would a carbon tax do
Well, the price of meat would go up, particularly beef and dairy products (did you know that if you put all the world’s cows on one side of scale and all the rest of the non-human mammals on the other that the cows would weigh more?). 

The price of organic food would go down.  £35 per tonne would mean that an organic farmer would get £130 per hectare in carbon rebate and the industrial farmer would have to pay a carbon tax of £120 per hectare – that’s a £250 difference.  It pretty much cancels out the phoney cost advantage of industrially produced food and in many cases organic food would cost less.   

We’d end up with other benefits – reduced nitrate pollution of water supplies; fewer endocrine disrupting chemicals affecting us from the foetus till old age; more biodiversity – you know the drill. 

A carbon tax would also encourage tree planting. You can cut a tree down in a few hours - it takes 20-50 years to grow a new tree.  A carbon rebate for tree planting would pay the tree grower 10 tonnes or £350 a year, just for planting a new woodland. 

Sheep farming emits 5 tonnes of CO2 per year per hectare, so sheep farmers would have to pay £175 in carbon tax – that’s a difference of £525.  Few farmers would raise sheep and they’d all plant trees.  What would happen if we planted trees on the higher ground?  Well, trees soak up water when it rains.  Their root systems stop soil from washing away into rivers and the sea. Duh.

There’s 1.5 billion hectares of agricultural land and about 3.5 billion hectares of pasture.  That’s 5 billion hectares.  If we stopped trashing the soil and started farming organically and planted trees on pastureland we could sequester over 50 tonnes of CO2 every year.  That would be overkill, though. The net increase in carbon dioxide that is causing global warming is only 4 tonnes per year.   But it shows how easy it would be if we just taxed the emission of carbon and rewarded farmers and foresters who sequester it.

We stopped emitting lead 20 years ago because it was making everyone stupid and crazy.  We stopped emitting hydrofluorocarbons because they were destroying the ozone layer.  We stopped emitting sulphur dioxide because it was causing acid rain.  This was done with regulation and taxes to encourage the alternatives. 

The big climate talks are in Paris in November 2015.  By then the EU, China, California, Quebec, New England, British Columbia, Washington state and Oregon will have a carbon tax.   This means there will be genuine momentum to bring the rest of the world into the system, with no exceptions (Kyoto excluded agriculture and transport and let developing nations like China, India and Brazil off the hook).  A carbon tax is the simplest way to change behavior.  By paying a tax of £35 per tonne of CO2 now we can save a future cost of £150 per tonne emitted and protect our grandchildren from the consequences of climate change.  That’s £4 of payback for every £1 we save now.

It’s time to forget adaptation.  We have the power to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, we just need a carbon tax.