I think we need a global pollution trade, because otherwise those who try to protect the environment subsidy making of pullution in the other countries. Then nobody wants to be the best environmental protector for the costs of the local economy.
Therefore it is not enough to give some help for technological developement or something like this. It is a need for international contract, where countries, which are not staying inside the limits the promise to hold, are punished in some way.

The argument that goods are made in one country and than consumed in another country is as well a bad argument. Europeans want nothing more, but that the costs of pollution in Asia are in the price of the goods. Then western economy becomes more competitive, as the environmental laws tend to be more strict in the west.
This would lower unemployment in the west, which is a much more severe problem, than a bit lower prices for clothes and toys. Anyhow there is a huge difference in what consumers pay to the retailer and what the enterprises pay to Asian producers, sometimes more than a factor of ten.

A technical point- a Pigouvian tax is not a tax on “something bad.” Its a tax on activity that imposed costs on those not involved. So though chanting loudly while praying is a wholesome activity, it is fit candidate for a Pigouvian tax, while drinking yourself silly in you own home (a terrible activity) is not.

In that index, cycling might become the best transportation of the future :). Already in my campus at Redmond, you could see so many people switching to the next-generation lifestyle - cycling, walking, keeping windows open, avoiding ACs, wearing sweaters during winter :).

In hydro electric case, collosal damage to forests are not taken into account. Each square mile of a tropical forest (in which we have the dams) can absorb thousands of tons of carbon every year, and destroying them will cause their emission (much more than a coal plant), apart from the loss of pricelss flora and fauna that run the ecological system. Then consider the losses in seepage from the dams leeching the soil, the huge mounds of cement needed to house the water, the erosion effects, the increase in evaporation (releasing another greenhouse gas H2O), the loss of fish life leading to losses of jobs…. Hydro electricity is the worst mistake of mankind. Fortunately its not economical everywhere, saving the world from another disaster.

Wind power is not as bad, if they are setup in places without clearing coastline forests and dont lead to a change in local weather patterns including rainfall. But, considering its very low potential with these conditions, from a macro perspective it is not interesting at all, though from a micro perspective it can help in rural power generation at remote locations and help a lot of communities to come to power-grid.

I’ll need to spend more time in researching why solar subsidies dont work, but my gut feeling is that with proper structural adjustments and more generous monetary support, the tipping point might not be far.

In short, as mentioned in the other thread, we need a comprehensive environmental tax in which CO2 emission is just one part. Otherwise, we will be keeping on having knee-jerk reactions with today’s global warming worries replaced by tomorrow’s other environmental worries. We need a considerable rethink in any technology, practice or business that affect environmentally sensitive forests (mangrove, tropical rain forests, etc) and restructure taxation principles based on that.

Firstly, the taxes on automotive fuel are not punitive taxes. If they were then diesel which is far more polluting than petrol would face a higher tax, not lower.

Secondly the current subsidies on solar power are not working. Most of the 100 MW of solar panels built in India are exported. Most new capacity that is coming up aims solely for the export market. The only ones sold in India are those that qualify for the 50% govt subsidy, which is for a fixed number of installations annually. Once that number is exceeded, there is no market.

I find it curious that you state that wind and hydro are more disastrous to the environment than coal-powered plants. That does go against conventional belief, but I guess you have your reasons and I will respect those.

A lot of complex systems including economic, ecological & biological systems have a range of non-linear dynamics with complex tipping points that turn can turn a stable region into a nightmare by just altering a few variables. And this is why I feel a lot of carbon tax systems are so stupid. If you destroy 10 hectares of Amazon forest, you cannot replace it by planting 10 hectares of some trees elsewhere, the same way as you cannot replace the loss of 10 white tigers by growing 10 pet cats. With all the advanced mechanisms we still dont have a lot of understanding into the working of these complex systems, and we dont want any body to feel too comfortable and moral in polluting the environment by paying some lousy carbon credits.

And regarding support for alternative fuels, a lot of mechanisms exist already. There are generous loan and grant schemes for biogas, solar panels etc in villages and there are punitive taxation methods for disastrous fuels like Gasoline and less so for a more benign Diesel. And the government still pursues controversial Hydroelectric system along with subsidized wind power utilities. But, there is no way Hydroelectric and windpower support the growing needs of India and I feel it is like giving a staw of grass for an hungry elephant.

To reach Western level of development, India needs to increase per-capita energy use by alteast 10 times the current levels, and even if 1X of the component is from hydro/wind, we are all screwed with disastrous environmental calamities. The only way is Thorium based nuclear development to achieve that kind of development, along with exploration for better solar energy.

@Lee - Thanks for the stats. I will not debate them, so let us agree to disagree here. :)
@Balaji - Apparently global warming should warm up huge areas in Canada and Russia and open them up for more comfortable habitation and agriculture. This would be another category of folks who would \”benefit\” from global warming. (Of course this is still hotly debated by scientists.)
General Clarification:

Hover since the cause and effect of global warming is outside the purview of my post, I will not compare our pollution levels with that of the west.

My point was that emissions are polluting our cities and villages, even leading to smog in some places. Where cleaner technologies have worked (natural gas, which is cleaner than petrol/diesel) they have shown great results, environmentally and economically. Thus it makes great sense for India to move in that direction, and to use economic mechanisms to accelerate the movement in that direction.

As the govt tries to electrify remote and poor villages, it is increasingly looking to alternate sources of energy like biomass/biogas for instance. So funding for these technologies would help these poor - also since they will be powered by clean energy sources, they will pay no carbon tax. As the technology matures, even villages that have (poor) electric supply would get such power units to complement their supply. This would decrease the highly polluting smoke from their wood stoves, as well as all the methane from biomass that would now be converted to biogas and fertilizer.

Did you ever consider about the loss of polar habitats endangering the rare species like Penguins and polar bears? Did you consider the loss of lives of millions of people and flora/fauna living in the submerging of low lying regions like Bangladesh, Mauritius, etc who have no part in this game? Did you consider the effect of climatic change on the livelihoods of millions of farmers in tropical countries? What about the weather impacts like record making floods we are seeing across the world the last couple of years?

The West has a moral responsbility in answering this question to the rest of the world. Just as it complains the poor nations for export of terrorism, it should hold it accountable for export of natural disasters. Unless the consumption levels in countries like US comes down to a more sustainable world average, we lurking into far greater problems of which global warming with CO2 is only a part.