![\"IbeforeE3\"](\"http:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/IbeforeE3.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\u00a9 David Bergman<\/h5>\n
Let me back up a moment for those who have not had the misfortune of either an economics background or regular encounters with the word \u201cexternalize.\u201d (If you haven\u2019t, you may need to internalize that word so that you can toss it around in, say, dinner conversations with your climate change denying relatives.) An externality, as used in the dismal science, is often defined as \u201can effect of a purchase or use decision by one set of parties on others who did not have a choice and whose interests were not taken into account.\u201d It amounts to a rebuttal of \u201cthere\u2019s no such thing as a free lunch\u201d because an externality is, in effect, a free lunch for the party causing the cost.<\/p>\n
Externalities are, arguably, the primary reason our capitalist system screws the environment (and us along with it). From a business\u2019s point of view, why care about costs that you don\u2019t have to pay for? The obvious response is to make the person or company causing the environmental costs pay for them. In the case of climate disruption and carbon emissions, the method is some form of carbon pricing, preferably a cap and dividend system like that promoted by eco-stalwarts Bill McKibben and James Hansen, and first introduced as legislation<\/a> in 2009. A carbon fee would be a more direct route, but cap and dividend would offset the increased price of carbon-emitting forms of energy. In theory, that should have been more acceptable \u2013 if not actually desirable \u2013 but our head-in-the-sand, hands-in-the-money legislators thought otherwise.<\/p>\n The i-before-e rule can be applied to many industries. It\u2019s most often talked about in terms of power plants. But here\u2019s another example to ponder: if airlines or aircraft manufacturers had to pay a fee for the carbon emissions of their planes, that would have at least two effects. It would increase the costs of air travel so passengers would make more accurate decisions about when and where to fly (and could choose to use their carbon dividends to pay the higher but environmentally correct costs). Perhaps more significantly, it would shift the responsibility and the incentive to develop less polluting planes and engines to the industry. The same would hold true for manufacturers of products ranging from cars to cable boxes. (I hate that the cable boxes we\u2019re forced to accept from the cable TV monopolies are huge suckers of vampire energy. I recently asked Time Warner if they had Energy Star-rated boxes \u2013 which do exist \u2013 and got an apathetic “nah” for a reply.)<\/p>\n The original \u201ci before e except after c\u201d is usually followed by the disclaimer \u201cor when sounded as \u2018a\u2019 as in neighbor and weigh.\u201d Aside from the fact that there\u2019s a, um, surfeit (that seemed to be the appropriate word to use here) of exceptions, it\u2019s a somewhat unfortunate addition when added to our version since we\u2019re referring to weighing<\/i> the cost of carbon in order to promote better communities among neighbors<\/i>. Okay, so that last part\u2019s a bit of a stretch. But I don\u2019t think it means I have to forfeit<\/i> the idea, unless you\u2019re going to get feisty<\/i> on me. The fact that the English language is a mess, breaking rules left and right and undoubtedly causing externalities of its own, shouldn\u2019t keep us from adopting this eco-mnemonic.<\/p>\nShare this:<\/h3>