Saturday, February 20, 2010

$2.2 Trillion in Environmental Damage

I wrote a college term paper for freshman level Economics, in which I suggested that the only way to fight pollution was to stop allowing polluters to externalize the costs of that pollution.  My economics professor agreed and told me it was years ahead of it’s time.  I sent a copy to whoever my Congressman was at the time and never received a reply.  Too bad.  Had they paid attention then, we would not now be facing this.
The cost of pollution and other damage to the natural environment caused by the world's biggest companies would wipe out more than one-third of their profits if they were held financially accountable, a major unpublished study for the United Nations has found.
The report comes amid growing concern that no one is made to pay for most of the use, loss and damage of the environment, which is reaching crisis proportions in the form of pollution and the rapid loss of freshwater, fisheries and fertile soils.
Later this year, another huge UN study - dubbed the "Stern for nature" after the influential report on the economics of climate change by Sir Nicholas Stern - will attempt to put a price on such global environmental damage, and suggest ways to prevent it. The report, led by economist Pavan Sukhdev, is likely to argue for abolition of billions of dollars of subsidies to harmful industries like agriculture, energy and transport, tougher regulations and more taxes on companies that cause the damage.
Ahead of changes which would have a profound effect - not just on companies' profits but also their customers and pension funds and other investors - the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment initiative and the United Nations Environment Programme jointly ordered a report into the activities of the 3,000 biggest public companies in the world, which includes household names from the UK's FTSE 100 and other major stockmarkets.
The study, conducted by London-based consultancy Trucost and due to be published this summer, found the estimated combined damage was worth US$2.2 trillion (£1.4tn) in 2008 - a figure bigger than the national economies of all but seven countries in the world that year.
The figure equates to 6-7% of the companies' combined turnover, or an average of one-third of their profits, though some businesses would be much harder hit than others.
"What we're talking about is a completely new paradigm," said Richard Mattison, Trucost's chief operating officer and leader of the report team. "Externalities of this scale and nature pose a major risk to the global economy and markets are not fully aware of these risks, nor do they know how to deal with them."
The biggest single impact on the $2.2tn estimate, accounting for more than half of the total, was emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. Other major "costs" were local air pollution such as particulates, and the damage caused by the over-use and pollution of freshwater.
The true figure is likely to be even higher because the $2.2tn does not include damage caused by household and government consumption of goods and services, such as energy used to power appliances or waste; the "social impacts" such as the migration of people driven out of affected areas, or the long-term effects of any damage other than that from climate change. The final report will also include a higher total estimate which includes those long-term effects of problems such as toxic waste.
Trucost did not want to comment before the final report on which sectors incurred the highest "costs" of environmental damage, but they are likely to include power companies and heavy energy users like aluminium producers because of the greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels. Heavy water users like food, drink and clothing companies are also likely to feature high up on the list.
Sukhdev said the heads of the major companies at this year's annual economic summit in Davos, Switzerland, were increasingly concerned about the impact on their business if they were stopped or forced to pay for the damage.
"It can make the difference between profit and loss," Sukhdev told the annual Earthwatch Oxford lecture last week. "That sense of foreboding is there with many, many [chief executives], and that potential is a good thing because it leads to solutions."
The aim of the study is to encourage and help investors lobby companies to reduce their environmental impact before concerned governments act to restrict them through taxes or regulations, said Mattison.
"It's going to be a significant proportion of a lot of companies' profit margins," Mattison told the Guardian. "Whether they actually have to pay for these costs will be determined by the appetite for policy makers to enforce the 'polluter pays' principle. We should be seeking ways to fix the system, rather than waiting for the economy to adapt. Continued inefficient use of natural resources will cause significant impacts on [national economies] overall, and a massive problem for governments to fix."...
Inserted from <The Guardian>
An externalized cost is the part of the true cost of producing a product or service that the producer is allowed to leave for someone else to pay.  Pollution is a prime example, because if taxpayers pay to clean up a toxic waste dump,  if others suffer ill health due to exposure to waste products, or if costal cities drown due to global climate change, those costs have or will have been passed on to someone else.
All costs must be included in the cost of all goods and services.
But, but, but… it might put some corporations out of business!
So be it.  If the true costs (with all environmental costs internal) of a product or service are so high that there is insufficient demand to support the producer, then that producer ought to fail.
But, but, but… It might cost corporations 1/3 of their profits!
So be it.  If internalizing all costs cuts their profits, their profits are too high.
I have no doubt that Republicans will unanimously oppose this idea.  How odd.  Because what I am arguing here is really nothing more that capitalism in a free market.

6 comments:

Randal Graves said...

As if the vacuum created by all those polluters going out of business will be filled by those corporations who pollute far less. Pollution is inevitable, and no one pollutes more than trees!

TRUTH 101 said...

The problem is more than the pollution. It's the attitude and total lack of vision and courage of not just our legislators, but a huge section of America Tom.


Al the charts and facts in the world are rendered mute when corporations or thier shills cry "It will cost jobs!"
Or the tried and true "It will raise taxes!"

The middle class is under attack from the wealthy and their minions. Your previous posts shows the rich are winning. And the middle class is silently letting them becuase to fight back with fair taxes and forcing companies to clean up the messes they made would "Cost jobs and raise taxes!"

TomCat said...

Randal, we can survive tree pollution.

I agree, Truth. Still, I will rant once in a while in the hope that someday we will tax the rich sufficiently to pay for the needed changes.

TRUTH 101 said...

Oh. I'll keep ranting along with you TomCat. This is no time to stop ranting.

Lisa G. said...

I think you are right on this TC - if the corps were required to pay for their damage, some companies would rightfully go out of business and would be replaced by more efficient companies. In a free market, this is how it should work - survival of the fittest and all.

TomCat said...

Amen, brother Infidel!! ;-)

Exactly Lisa. This is nothing more than what Republicans claim to believe.