“A writer stands outside a story yelling, “Open Sesame!” and the story, as if a seed, opens. And treasure is found inside. That treasure, of course, is just another story, and it all begins again…”
 – The Paris Review (19 September 2012) 

Do you remember the story of ‘Ali Baba and the Forty thieves’? Do you remember the part where after the clear annunciation of the words ‘open sesame,’ the mountain opens to reveal a cave full of treasures? The Paris review goes on to debate all of this but my childhood argument about the story was far simpler.

I was convinced after hearing the story that people had heard him all wrong. What sense did ‘open sesame’ mean anyway? The phrase ‘open, says me’ was far more instructive. A couple more years added onto my age and I’m beginning to believe that words aren’t always very clear, least of all ‘magic words.’

As children, ‘please’ is the only magic words a parent seems to want to hear, not ‘abracadabra’ or ‘wingardium leviosa,’ which you can blame J.K Rowling for. My poor parents heard enough of that. As adults ‘magic words’ such as ‘please’ take on a different life, it’s the polite thing people add to instructions, it’s not really a request like, ‘please may I have a glass of milk?’ Instead it’s, ‘please include form x,y, z and q.’ Which, really means if you don’t include it we will not consider your tax forms, job application, university thesis or anything else of use, really.

We still have ‘magic words’ as adults, however. A few words can elicit often certain reactions from any number of people. Some of which are about as disruptive as the mountain opening on the fault-lined hills of a California city or saying you took a shower to protect you from HIV/AIDS to a country that has been battling to educate a population about HIV/AIDS prevention. (Imagine appropriate Zapiro caricature of South Africa’s President Zuma and insert here). Examples? If you want to rile up corporate business people in the U.S you say the words ‘health care’ or ‘Obama care,’ if you want to rile up environmentalists, you say ‘fracking.’ These words in themselves mean little without the context. Without context about the concern for aquifers potentially becoming polluted with mismanagement (I’m thinking Macondo Blowout disaster) the anger over fracking makes about as much sense as saying ‘open sesame’ to a beehive.

For climate change, the trending magic words seem to be ‘a price on carbon.’ Those words have become so revered to this audience that they are seen as a silver bullet solution to the whole global warming debate. Those with economic interests in a carbon market are debating this, as are policy makers. There must be a reason this is more of a debate than the silver bullet it is made out to be. No one is really shooting it anywhere yet. For those in favour these words stand to open the mountain full of treasure, to those opposed you’re probably just shouting at a beehive and are at risk to get stung. So what is the context of the debate?

Feel free to chime in, an open invitation to anyone, except trolls. Sorry trolls, you provide little value, and, unless you can be entertaining in your remarks please stick to your billy, scape, goats.

Say ‘what’?
As I understand it, and, a disclaimer, I’m still trying to make good sense of it, a price on carbon will enable a market mechanism to trade carbon emissions. In essence it’s a free market ideal to follow the implementation of a government policy, a fiscal instrument, such as a carbon tax or a cap and trade system. The in’s and outs of this differ with preferred methodologies. The core ideal, however, seems to be: pay for carbon now and save on adaptation and what many are citing as the expensive costs of disaster relief that are associated with climate change, rising sea-levels, droughts, extreme weather etc. Putting a price on carbon should ideally disincentivise carbon intensive industries continuing with the business as usual scenario, at least not without having to pay for not adapting their practices. It would also allow for the creation of revenue for the mitigation and adaptation costs associated with climate change, help to decrease government deficits and simultaneously promote more responsible business practices. When you put it like that you can see the silver quality to the bullet.

Advocates:
Christine Lagarde, the Managing director of the IMF, has been a vocal advocate of putting a price on carbon. A similar argument can be made, that, if carbon emissions are seen as a negative externality, like pollution is the result of not having a price for corrupting our resources, then the best way to correct this deficiency would be to adjust the market and let it sort itself out. Lagarde views incentives as the key to sustainable development, more specifically, stable pricing. Former Vice President Al Gore is another supporter of carbon pricing.

But:
Unfortunately deciding on a price for carbon has been anything but easy. Of course, no one agrees. And to top it all off the markets have had several years of inspiring anything but confidence, despite recent indicators hinting at improvements and potential stability. The Cyprus debacle managed to get everyone in a tizz not long after the Dow Jones decided to rally and show us it’s best performance since 2007. 

Another pro to add to the debate:
A recent UHCR paper details the expected millions of people who will be displaced by coastal flooding, agricultural disruption and will result in crossborder relocation. This is probably an expensive movement, with massive legal ramifications. There is already a UN Sub-Commission tasked with dealing with the disappearance of States and territories. The question is simple, and simply without an uncomplicated answer, where do you put all the people who will be out of a home because of environmental degradation. Even if it’s a gradual displacement it is still anticipated. And problematic. One can only imagine how much it would cost to make a pretty floating city like the one featured below to house climate change refugees. For the people already complaining about immigration policies, imagining what happens when more people are forced to move, is likely to look like one of Dante’s circles of hell. At least this is the impression I’ve racked up from my own, current ‘non-resident alien’ status. So, to summarise you have the idea that investing now and accepting a carbon price would help in the long run.

Another but:
That is the long run view, and that always is juxtaposed with the short-run. Namely the immediate effect on trade, assuming not everyone plays the same game, and with the effects on corporate profits. There are a few players, however, who are looking at joining the game.

Game players:
The UK was due to adopt a carbon floor price on 1 April 2013. China has indicated it is implementing a carbon tax, dates and policy specifics still to be announced.
And, another win for the BRICS, South Africa will implement carbon pricing by 2015. California is piloting a Cap and Trade program, where it is working to establish a floor price. The price has increased over time with a series of auctions, which has made players hopeful about the involvement of businesses. 

Immediate issues:
There is a challenge to establish a floor price. California has been battling this out in a bill that has taken about 4 years to gain recognition. While they’re trying to prove that it works there are a few brave players entering the field, they are however going to pay to play. It is estimated that business who do join the market will face higher energy costs than their non-playing international competitors. Britain would be paying 18 – 4 pounds equivalent, about 4.5 times the price of EU with the adoption of its carbon floor price. Of course telling companies that you want to enforce something that may affect their prices on the global market or profit margins will probably make you about as popular as screaming ‘I believe in a person’s right to abort a pregnancy’ at a ‘pro-life’ rally in the middle of America.

Those not in favour, such as Tory Reformist Martin Callanan, believe the market mechanism will require adjustments. Failure to have enough people on board likely isn’t going to bode well for any market place. But is it sufficient to leave it to international institutions such as the IMF to set up the board game before we play? Voting against the measure could be seen as short sighted, especially if you have the opportunity to help make the rules. We already have taxes on things like alcohol and smoking and that is meant to influence the decisions individual life rather than a global collective. But again that is the only one side of the argument. The overall success of a carbon price will likely depend on participation, and if we can’t start a conversation about it and what it would really mean, well then it probably doesn’t matter what you say to the mountain.

Perhaps the magic word in all of this is that a lot of people don’t like the way ‘tax’ tastes when it rolls off of your tongue. It would seem we have two opposing magic words, ‘a price for carbon’ which to others means ‘tax.’ On the one hand you’re shouting at a treasure-filled mountain, on the other you’re shouting at a beehive.

What would it mean to you? 

Once upon a time there were three little pigs, starts the story by James Orchard Haliwell-Phillipps, each built a house to stop the big bad wolf from eating them. The first little pig built his house of straw, and the second built his house from twigs. Both were very satisfied until the wolf huffed and puffed and blew their house down, they consequently became dinner. The third little pig, reputedly the cleverest of the three, built his house of bricks and as much as the wolf huffed and puffed he could not blow the house down.

As children we learn from fairy tales, the ones we read in picture books, and were left to contemplate in our dreams as we drifted off after bedtime stories. Much like the story of Alice in Wonderland. Lessons are woven through the introduction of imaginary characters, there is always a villain and a hero, together creating some kind of black and white picture lesson ingrained into the minds of youths. As we grow older we see the pictures differently and learn to recognize the shades of grey spreading between the black and white but the image from the lesson remains imprinted into our minds. Reading about the latest developments in sustainable building and Net Zero Energy buildings reminded me of the three little pigs and the big bad wolf.

The lesson seems to come down to building strong foundations. We can choose to translate this literally into how we construct our infrastructure or, more figuratively, our lives. What I have taken from this story is that our brick buildings will need to be sustainable and the cement we use needs to be made of resiliency.

When we hear about climate change, science does not want to say that climate change directly causes adverse weather effects and natural disasters but it recognizes a correlation between climate change and the increased frequency of adverse weather effects and natural disasters (see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Synthesis Report, 2007). Given the changes in weather and natural disasters across the world this lesson in resiliency seems more important than ever. If the big bad wolf is climate change, in this story, it seems he has been huffing and puffing quite a lot of late.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/us/temperatures-soar-as-heat-wave-continues.html) reported a record-setting heat wave spreading from St. Louis to Washington, which has culminated in 36 weather-related deaths, “buckled roadways” and two trains being derailed. Overall this has been reported as the hottest summer recorded for the Northern hemisphere (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/04/climate-changes-extreme-weather-us-heatwave ). I’m sure we’ve heard those words before, if not several times and either we can put that down to the media seeking attention for the weather, or for those less optimistic, perhaps we are the proverbial frogs in the boiling water becoming accustomed to the temperature rising and abnormal weather events becoming the norm. Recent earthquakes in Italy certainly seem different to the norm (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-29/world/world_europe_italy-earthquake_1_58-magnitude-earthquake-60-magnitude-quake-quake-response?_s=PM:EUROPE). No one in the region can remember as many earthquakes occurring in such a short time frame. The Royal Society published papers to the effect that climate change could even affect the earth’s crust, which could increase the incidence of earthquakes and volcanic activity (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1267137/Climate-change-spark-volcanoes-earthquakes-tsunamis.html).

One of the most remarkable things about human beings is said to be our ability to adapt. Growing up in South Africa our winters were never as severe as those I encountered in Europe and the USA, but in both I noticed the way they adapted to their weather conditions in a very specific way- building temperature control. I learnt that in winter it is wise to wear something light under the layers I put on to guard me from the cold outside, so as to be able to cope with the heat inside. In summer I learnt it was wise to bring a jersey/sweater if I was going to be inside so that I wouldn’t get cold.

So far we have learnt to adapt to the seasons by equipping our buildings with devices that make the weather inside more favourable than the conditions we experience outside. This has proven to be a short-term fix. Heating and cooling is the most energy intensive characteristic of our buildings, it accounts for half of all the energy used in buildings and one third of global final energy consumption, (http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2400 ).

Consequently this is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, but through energy efficiency and low/zero carbon heating and cooling technology we have the potential to reduce around 2gigatons (Gt) of C02 emission by 2050. The good news is that not only is much of this technology commercially available but it is being used. Could this be the new brick house?

One of my favourite blogs Clean Technica (www.cleantechnica.com) reported on the latest developments in Philadelphia as they endeavor to become the greenest city in the USA through “super-green” developments. The Nexus Energyhomes development is developing energy efficient homes in the Northern Liberties community in Philadelphia. By combing efficient air filtration, volatile compound (VOC) building materials, energy recovery and geo-solar technology they are hoping to produce Net Zero Energy homes, with the highest green building standards in line with the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB). The mix of this technology is said not only to be sustainable but will also allow residents to enjoy plummeting utility bills.

A Net Zero Energy Building (NZEB) is a relatively new concept used to describe a building, which produces the same amount of energy per year as it uses. Although there are only a few of these such buildings the advances in technology are making them more feasible. The exact metrics tend to vary but there is an overall consensus according to the National Institute of Building Science in the USA (http://www.wbdg.org/resources/netzeroenergybuildings.php) that the building design minimizes energy requirements and uses renewable energy systems to meet energy demand. 

There are four ways according to the Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to define net zero energy, these are: Net Zero Site Energy, Net Zero Source Energy, Net Zero Energy Costs and Net Zero Energy Emissions. For those more interested in the specifics you may want to look at this: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39833.pdf.

While this seems to work best for smaller buildings and homes, it is increasing in popularity and larger buildings are giving it a try as the communications Director of the New Buildings Institute recently noted: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=net-zero-energy-buildings-in-us. This is a development, which is likely to make the US Green Building Council with all their LEED ratings smile, just like a Cheshire cat.

What is the caveat to all of this? Well to draw on the reminder sent out by Dr. Sandra Knight of FEMA at the first-annual Dupont Green Week this year in Washington DC: in the face of climate change construction also needs to be safe and resilient. Her message is that while powering on in an energy efficient manner we shouldn’t forget to think about resiliency.

In one sense energy efficiency is resilient in itself, but as consumers I imagine that we have to ensure that the buildings are also strong enough to withstand the worst huffing and puffing of the big bad wolf.