The European Union uses carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-eq) in their emission trading system to penalize the use of non-renewable energy sources. Is the CO2-eq a good pollution metric or does the system need improvement?
The use of CO2-eq as a pollution metric in the European Union's emission trading system is a step in the right direction, but it may not be the most effective way to penalize the use of non-renewable energy sources.

CO2-eq measures the total greenhouse gas emissions produced by a specific activity, including not only carbon dioxide, but also other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. This allows for a more comprehensive approach to addressing climate change and reducing emissions.

However, the use of CO2-eq as a sole metric for penalizing non-renewable energy sources may not fully address the environmental impact of those sources. For example, the burning of fossil fuels not only releases greenhouse gases, but also air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants contribute to air pollution, which has direct and immediate health impacts on local communities.

Therefore, while the use of CO2-eq is a good start, the system could be improved by incorporating additional metrics to address the full range of environmental impacts of non-renewable energy sources. This could include measures such as air pollutant emissions and the use of scarce natural resources.

In conclusion, the use of CO2-eq as a pollution metric in the European Union's emission trading system is a positive step, but it is not enough on its own to fully address the environmental impact of non-renewable energy sources. Further improvement is needed to ensure a more comprehensive and effective approach to reducing emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change.
What do you think would be a better metric?
It would be more effective to use a comprehensive metric that incorporates not only greenhouse gas emissions, but also other environmental impacts of non-renewable energy sources such as air pollutant emissions and the use of scarce natural resources. This would provide a more accurate picture of the total environmental impact of these sources and ensure that all aspects of their impact are being addressed.

One example of a comprehensive metric that incorporates multiple environmental factors is the Environmental Performance Index (EPI). The EPI uses a variety of indicators to rank countries based on their environmental performance, including measures of air and water pollution, biodiversity and habitat, climate and energy, and other environmental issues.

Another example is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which evaluates the environmental impact of a product or service throughout its entire life cycle, including its production, use, and disposal. This approach allows for a more holistic assessment of the environmental impact of non-renewable energy sources, taking into account not only their direct emissions, but also their indirect impacts such as the depletion of natural resources and the pollution of air and water.

In conclusion, a comprehensive metric that incorporates multiple environmental factors would be a better metric for penalizing the use of non-renewable energy sources and ensuring a more effective approach to reducing emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change.