Carbon Pricing is Not Enough

I'd line up with that.

Here's the rub. How do we get there?

quote:

---

The Perils of Playing Nice
In shooting for the political mainstream, the climate movement has shot itself in the foot, argue David Spratt and Philip Sutton

Global warming is an emergency, and "for emergency situations we need emergency action," UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon told the world in November 2007.

Why, then, has climate policy moved in such a painfully slow manner? How can the impasse be resolved between what needs doing quickly, based on the science, and what seems a "reasonable" thing to do in the current political environment?

It seems as if there are two great tectonic plates - scientific necessity and political pragmatism - that meet very uneasily at a fault line....

[url=http://www.newmatilda.com/print/3909]Link To Full Article[/url]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]

No. They're searching for new technologies.[/b]

---

Nothing wrong with searching for new technologies as long as they do not lead to growth. New technologies that lead to reduced consumption and a shrinking of society would be a good thing. The problem is that politicians, even while pretending to be green minded, still promise economic growth, etc., and use oxymorons like "sustainable growth" and the questionable phrase "sustainable development" which could be just a euphemism for growth.

Truth is, growth is the primary cause of the problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Nothing wrong with searching for new technologies as long as they do not lead to growth.

---

I think you're missing a very fundamental idea here: technical progress that allows for [i]more[/i] production using the [i]same[/i] (or lower) level of resources.

No, you don't understand. Less consumption of non-renewable/polluting resources, yes. But with technical progress, we can also have increased consumption of things that are associated with higher standards of living.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]No, you don't understand. Less consumption of non-renewable/polluting resources, yes. But with technical progress, we can also have increased consumption of things that are associated with higher standards of living.[/b]

---

It is questionable who doesn't understand what, eh? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Even renewable resources can be over consumed, and their consumption can cause pollution. At present we are consuming renewable resources at a rate greater than they can be renewed.

Along with reducing our consumption of fossil fuels we also need to reduce consumption of all forms of food and other resources.

We are faced not only with pollution from too much GHG being emitted, but with stripping of the land and sea of its renewable resources. Anything that increases the demand for any resource is going to add to the problem.

Rather than consuming more we need to be consuming more efficiently so that we consume less, and start down the path of long term reduction of human impact on the planet until we reach a balance with resources and other species closer to that which we had prior to the industrial revolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]In Gordon's terms the ability to have more comfortable homes is growth[/b]

---

Maybe so, but that is not what is usually meant by the term growth and using it thus only clouds the issue. Besides, Gordon himself said that technological development leads to more consumption.

Politicians around here are still talking about growth in terms of expanding operations and the economy which means depleting more resources.

And, we have the BC government with its sham carbon tax which is supposed to cut fuel use, at the same time pushing the Gateway project inorder to accommodate more traffic. And bragging about the population increase in the province, and pushing economic growth.

Of course they are killing the forest industry, but I have some doubts that allowing forest land to be turned into subdivisions and condos is a good thing.

Incomes may have been stagnant, but spending hasn't been. The resulting monetary debt may help solve the ecological debt.

This will not happen without more directly interventionist policies but a cap on carbon is the beginning of that.

quote:

---

Incomes may have been stagnant, but spending hasn't been. The resulting monetary debt may help solve the ecological debt.

---

That's a dangerous assumption.

Debt, or the inability to acquire more debt, does not cancel out human consumption. It merely changes consumption habits. So, for example, a human may burn less natural gas for staying warm, but a lot more wood.

We may be better off dumping a lot of technological advancements, such as power tools, ATVs and so on in favour of using more human labour, something the world has a surplus of. We might also become healthier for doing so, too.

It would be interesting to see what role technological change has played in increasing the wealth gap that is still growing.

Or how much less surplus wealth those Forest Hills members would have if they had to hire people to tend their yards and gardens by hand.

[url=http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/news.cfm?story=79756]OECD economists urge Canada to create Alberta and Federal sovereign oil funds[/url] to battle inflation and high dollar hurting Canadian manufacturing

[url=http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9f83919e-0e21-4... soars, stocks plunge as top bank warns of inflation[/url] Conservatives do nothing as expected

Scientists have not proved that Global warming is due primarily to human activities, all they can due is suggest that is the case. No-one can predict climate change with any degree of certainty. Perhaps Canadians ought to me more fearful of another ICE age, because global warming likley won't impact us much at all, save perhaps for polar bears.

The facts are that the earth's climate has been much cooler and much warmer in our long history, and that all of this hysteria regarding carbon emmissions could be a monumental waste of time. We must realize that fossil fuels will pretty much run out entirely within a 100 or so years, forcing change to largely more envirnmentaly friendly alternatives whether we like it or not. Fact is, there won't be all that much left to burn by then.

This post may not be particularly popular with the Global Warming champions, but that facts are that the global climate has been on a general warming trend for over 12000 years , this isn't an opinion , but a well documented fact. This trend may go on for another 12000 years regardless of how much C02 we restrict from going into the atmosphere.

Sometime as humans we get on "bandwagons" without properly understanding the facts. When we talk about macro-issues like broad climate change, we just don't have enough data to conclude without a pre-conceived notions whether global warming is a natural occuring event or accelerating significantly by our activities. Even if there was correlation between global climate change and our activities, who is to say conclusively this is a terrible thing?

Oh Geez I suppose that unless you are brainwashed by the Global Warming zealots you need not comment here? I thought this was a discussion forum,

Are we to believe the prognostications of Climatologists when they dont have the technology to predict where hurricanes end up when they form? We can't control whether its going to be sunny or snowing the next day, so how is it that we are so CONVINCED we are only to blame for global warming?

Global Warming aficionados seem to assume human beings are in control of the earth's climate destiny. To date, Global warming and increased greenhouse gas emissions is only CORRELATED,causality has not been proven. Meaning, that all the efforts in the world to slow the emmissions of Co2 may not reverse a general warming trend that has been in place for 12000 years. It is conceivable, even probable, that the efforts of million to slow down the emissions of Co2 may be moot.

People its a theory that is unproven, we arent talking the law of gravity.

As I had said previously, modern hmans gave been around only a nanosecond of the earths history, and climate has been much warmer and much colder without us burning anything. Its going to chnage, that isnt an opinion just a fact based on history

GLOBAL WARMING sound so much like the Acid rain hysteria of the 1980's. I was lead to believe in the 1980's as a child all of our lakes in the north would be acidic wastelands because of air pollution. When was the last time ou heard ANYTHING about Acid rain? I was also lead to believe we'd pretty much all be dead of aids and SARS.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Publicfinance:
[b]Are we to believe the prognostications of Climatologists when they dont have the technology to predict where hurricanes end up when they form? We can't control whether its going to be sunny or snowing the next day, so how is it that we are so CONVINCED we are only to blame for global warming?[/b]

---

You are confusing [i]climate[/i] with [i]weather[/i], and similarly [i]climatologists[/i] with [i]meteorologists[/i]. The level of predictability is completely different between them. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now that will come splashing up the beach versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide.

As for "control" of the weather, that's not necessary in order to be able to predict it, or to make predictions about climate. We can't control the movement of the Moon around the Earth, either, but by using science we can predict to the exact second when the next solar eclipse will occur.

quote:

---

[b]To date, Global warming and increased greenhouse gas emissions is only CORRELATED, causality has not been proven. Meaning, that all the efforts in the world to slow the emmissions of Co2 may not reverse a general warming trend that has been in place for 12000 years. It is conceivable, even probable, that the efforts of million to slow down the emissions of Co2 may be moot.[/b]

---

You evidently don't believe that increased greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming. The science that proves this has been around for decades. Ever wonder where the term "greenhouse" gas came from? Greenhouse -> trapped heat -> higher temperature -> get it?

So what is [b]your[/b] scientific explanation for the current global warming? Don't you think you have to come up with a better theory if you expect to persuade us "brainwashed" types that Co2 has nothing to do with it?

And after you have expounded on your theory, please explain to us how a proven 30% increase in atmospheric Co2 "probably" has no warming effect on the climate.

quote:

---

[b]As I had said previously, modern hmans gave been around only a nanosecond of the earths history, and climate has been much warmer and much colder without us burning anything. Its going to chnage, that isnt an opinion just a fact based on history[/b]

---

The changes in temperature you are talking about occurred over time scales of thousands of years.

What we are dealing with now is a rise of 100 ppm of greenhouse gas in just 150 years, which is not only unprecedented, but corresponds exactly to the period of (a) the discovery of petroleum hydrocarbons in the Earth and their subsequent atmospheric emission by global human activity, and (b) the destruction of the forests and other natural carbon sinks through uncontrolled growth, driven by capitalist greed.

As for acid rain, you are a fool if you think that was a false alarm. Legislation and technolgical changes served to mitigate its effects, but it is still very much a serious environmental issue. It has had huge biological and economic repercussions which are still being investigated and assessed. There's plenty of information on the web about it, so there's no excuse for ignorance.

And what makes you think AIDS and SARS were false alarms? Scientists agree they are just the tip of the iceberg of the diseases that we can look forward to in coming decades - many of them boosted by uncontrolled climate change.

You might very well think that.

I couldn't possibly comment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Publicfinance:
[b]the analysis of the facts leads anyone with a clear mind to conclude that it isnt a slam dunk. [/b]

---

This is unbelievable without detailed explanation and citation of sources to the facts presented.

Temperature trends and the rise in GHG in the atmosphere both correlate to increasing human activity over the past 8000 years, and markedly so over the last 200.

I doubt that you can prove that there is no significant relation. And, the precautionary principle does not require a slam dunk for prudence, only reasonable suspicion, and from what I have read there is certainly more than that.

"Temperature trends and the rise in GHG in the atmosphere both correlate to increasing human activity over the past 8000 years, and markedly so over the last 200."

What are you saying, the cooking fires of 500 generations past ALSO were warming the earth.? I suppose Mammoth flatulence was the cause of the demise of the last Ice AGE?

As I said previously the earth has been warming not for 8000 years , but for more than 12000. Furthermore, increases in man-derived greenhouse gases have not been CONCLUSIVELY linked to cause the rise in global temperature, it may be coincidental and that just seems preposterous to some of you.

Correlation and causality are different concepts

Perhaps it could be said that the rise in property crime was correlated positively to the rise in the stock market. Does this mean that Rising stock market causes more crime? Positive correlation does NOT necessarily mean one causes the other this just means they correlate, and its for the social scientists to try to figure out why.

And for all the global politicking going on Global Warming no-one really knows whether any long term results will come out of man-made C02 reductions. The FACTS are that the vast majority of CO2 occurs naturally, and we produce a tiny amount of it in the grand scheme of things.

I believe the point is being MISSED that reduced burning of fossil fuels improves air QUALITY and I am all for that, but this idea being championed that we are to blame for the earth getting warmer is simply speculative. Perhaps some of you should remember most of canada was buried under a mile of ice no THAT long ago, climate change can be gradual or rapid and there isn't much we can do about it despite what the likes of Al Gore or David Suzuki have to say about it.

I would be interested to hear a well thought out rebuttal here, not grade school name calling. Hey, if it makes sense i'll be a card-carrying Global warming alarmist, but when the facts speak otherwise, I am still an agnostic.

quote:

---

And for all the global politicking going on Global Warming no-one really knows whether any long term results will come out of man-made C02 reductions. The FACTS are that the vast majority of CO2 occurs naturally, and we produce a tiny amount of it in the grand scheme of things.

---

The fact is that natural carbon dioxide emissions are essentially balanced by carbon dioxide absorption (Google carbon cycle). We do know that carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing, and we also know from the chemical properties of carbon from combustion where the increase is coming from. Adding carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is a bad idea based simply on the physical properties of these gases, which have been known about almost 200 years and quantified for over 100 (the average temperature of the Earth's surface would be 33 degrees cooler without them).

quote:

---

climate change can be gradual or rapid and there isn't much we can do about it

---

We can certainly trigger rapid changes; whether we can prevent them is another question.

quote:

---

Are you willing to go on record as a well read, intelligent person that miniscule increases in Co2 which hardly changes the makeup of the earths atmosphere at all will be one and only cause of climate change?

---

This is a gross misrepresentation of climate change theory (theory in the scientific sense (like gravity), not the colloquial sense). No-one says that increases in greenhouse gases are the only cause of climate change, or even the only cause of [i]anthropogenic[/i] climate change. Merely that it has become dominant in recent decades.

[url=http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/471469]Jack Layton in today's Star[/url]:

quote:

---

A carbon tax cannot achieve the results that are urgently needed. In fact, a carbon tax will make it less affordable for people to change their consumption habits because Canadians will have less money available to buy the more efficient, but more expensive, ecologically sustainable technology.

Liberal Leader Stйphane Dion has admitted that there is no way of knowing how much greenhouse gas emissions will go down – if at all – with his proposed tax. And by making it revenue neutral, the Liberals are simply giving up on investments in green solutions....

The NDP's polluter-pay plan sets absolute caps on major industrial emitters, who account for more than 50 per cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. These emitters would be required to purchase emissions credits at market-based prices. In the first year alone, auctioning credits would generate revenue of at least $2.5 billion.

Unlike the Conservatives, our targets are not based on the intensity of emissions. They are absolute, hard targets....

The NDP plan will invest heavily in public transit – light rail, trains, buses and streetcars.

Our plan:

• Helps workers adapt to shifting employment opportunities in the new energy economy.

• Makes it affordable for middle-class families to make sustainable purchases such as fuel-efficient vehicles and low-consumption home appliances.

• Funds a national program of home retrofits to reduce heating costs and take advantage of alternative sources of energy, such as solar and wind power.

---

I don't know how it happened, but when it comes to climate change policy, the NDP has become the Conservatives in a hurry. The NDP plan is the CPC plan, only more so.

What a croc!

What we have been looking at is an effectual Conservative government climate change plan, and all talk but do nothing Liberal government plan when Dion was Environment Minister in the previous government. As Tommy Douglas said a long time ago, and nothing has really changed in Canadian politics, we have Tweedledee Conservatives and Tweedledum Liberals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]I don't know how it happened, but when it comes to climate change policy, the NDP has become the Conservatives in a hurry. The NDP plan is the CPC plan, only more so.[/b]

---

[url=http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFgjfF8e1PycHX4ffSwfmplBKB... report questions Tory greenhouse-gas claims[/url]

[ 02 August 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Policywonk:
Have you actually read the whole thing?

---

Many times. I keep looking for trace elements of something that would qualify it as a [b]progressive[/b] policy, that is, provisions for compensating low-income households for the higher prices that they will have to pay.

I'm not finding them.

quote:

---

Both the NDP and the CPC are peddling the line that 'big industrial polluters' will pay, and neither are facing the income distribution issues.

I can understand the CPC's indifference to the effects of their policy on inequality. I don't understand why the NDP is ignoring the issue.

---

Your sophistry is tiresome.

Who said the NDP is indifferent?

The NDP plan says that low income households will be protected from the effects of increases in prices caused by carbon pricing.

The Liberals give details of how they will do that. And notwithstanding their long history of broken promises on programs they are going to deliver, Gordon finds that superior. And thinks its OK to pretend the NDP says nothing on the issue.

[ 02 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]