How To Break The Climate Deadlock

[Nick M]

If a certain behavior is taxed people might do it less. :idunno:

Like cigarette taxes that are used finance certain political programs? There is no man made global warming. Read the threads here. It is covered in detail.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

sell me a Tesla Model S with a 500 mile range, 15 minute recharge and the ability to pull a 2000 pound trailer for $20,000 and i'll buy one :idunno:

Ok the horse is ready.

Send the 20 grand.

There are volcanoes under the ice caps melting the ice.

LA

 

[genuineoriginal]

If a certain behavior is taxed people might do it less. :idunno:

I hear that they started taxing people in Colorado for smoking marijuana.

That doesn't seem to have slowed anyone down, but it did provide millions of dollars in additional revenue.

 

[kmoney]

I don't see how anything in the BC solution is "leaving it to free markets." An increasing scale of tax by the government isn't "free market."

I read this just last night.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427855/new-breed-greens-pro-capitalism-pro-fracking-patriotic

This group seems sensible to me. The answer doesn't have to be global socialism.

EDIT: I should add that I'm highly skeptical of global warming, but I'm not against treating the planet better, but not at the expense of going back to the stone age either.

Finally getting back to this article. Some quotes...

“Instead of viewing environmental problems as a sign of the coming apocalypse, we instead view them as unintended consequences of development,” says one of the movement’s founders, Michael Shellenberger. “We are not going to solve global warming with all of us trying to live with less.”

Of course it's an unintended consequence. Doesn't mean it's not also a coming apocalypse. They aren't mutually exclusive.
And is that implying that the 'old guard' of environmentalism is saying that all we have to do is live with less? :idunno: I think living with less can be part of the solution.

Now Shellenberger is the standard-bearer for ecomodernism, which promotes — among other things — nuclear energy as the cleanest, cheapest way to power the planet, especially for off-the-grid developing countries. “When I looked at the challenge of global energy and development needs, I changed my mind.”

I'm not absolutely against nuclear energy. I don't doubt it could/should be part of the path off fossil fuels.

he co-authored a lengthy essay, “Death of Environmentalism,” that criticized the movement’s leaders for failing to consider core American values in its approach: Environmental groups have spent the last 40 years defining themselves against conservative values like smaller government, fewer regulations, and free trade, without ever articulating a coherent morality we can call our own. Most of the intellectuals who staff environmental groups are so repelled by the Right’s values that we have assiduously avoided examining our own in a serious way.

What's incoherent about their morality? Or do they simply not have one?

Unlike the activists gathering in Paris who will blame human activity for every problem from melting sea ice to terrorism, ecomodernists embrace human ingenuity and modernity as the best way to mitigate the impact of a changing climate.

I think the tree-hugger side also believes in human ingenuity. The author of the article I posted believes in it also. The argument is that people aren't putting the ingenuity toward that in sufficient force. The government can try to provide that extra motivation.

Ecomodernists are pro-fracking.

:CRASH:

They advocate genetically engineered crops (GMOs) to help feed millions of malnourished and starving people and to relieve subsistence farmers from back-breaking agrarian work.

Ideally I'm against GMOs but it does seem hard to believe we can solve the hunger problems in the world without some use of GMOs.

They question how renewables such as wind and solar can scale up enough to eventually power a world with 9 billion people living in it.

We may never be able to sustain the entire world on renewable energy but we can probably make more progress that we've done.

“Let’s not all live in poverty, let’s lift everyone out of poverty. We need to pursue a capitalist agenda to succeed and learn from the past mistakes of modernization without throwing out modernization altogether.”

Who is throwing modernization out altogether? What does that even mean? :idunno:

In their “Ecomodernist Manifesto” co-authored by Shellenberger and released earlier this year, the group clear-headedly asserts their priorities: Climate change and other global ecological challenges are not the most important immediate concerns for the majority of the world’s people. Nor should they be. A new coal-fired power station in Bangladesh may bring air pollution and rising carbon dioxide emissions but will also save lives. For millions living without light and forced to burn dung to cook their food, electricity and modern fuels, no matter the source, offer a pathway to a better life, even as they also bring new environmental challenges.

There’s even a strain of patriotism often lacking in liberal dialogue about any issue. “Look at China, it’s making all the same mistakes we [the U.S.] have,” Shellenberger told an Australian audience a few years ago. “Such as longer life spans, greater energy consumption, and better medical access? We look at the next century and we are very excited about the potential.”

Those are valid concerns. Which is why some say the Western world needs to bear more of the brunt of this. I tend to agree. And I can also see some hypocrisy in the US, or other Western nations, that have grown dramatically with the benefits of modernization and fossil fuels telling less developed nations that they can't do the same thing. We need to lead the way in transitioning off and developing nations should, I think, be given more leeway in what they do. But then we also need to use the ingenuity that the article talks about to help grow those countries through other means.

 

[kmoney]

I hear that they started taxing people in Colorado for smoking marijuana.

That doesn't seem to have slowed anyone down, but it did provide millions of dollars in additional revenue.

Sure, if you can afford it then you'll go ahead and pay. It won't stop everyone. It might stop some. Or maybe the tax just is too low.

Even if you don't stop them, put the tax revenue to a good purpose like R&D and subsidies for renewable energy. :idunno:

 

[badp]

I ate a bean burrito earlier. I think I may be breaking the climate deadlock very soon.

 

[Nazaroo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alate_One
If we don't do something about climate change we're going to get WWIII from people fighting over limited resources.

That is funny.
:rotfl:

I think that the attempts to limit carbon dioxide emissions is what will lead to WWIII, not the negligible effects of the naturally occurring climate change.

Careful: Alate Blubber is talking Liberal-Socialist Newspeak.

(1) Its difficult to motivate people for WW3 even with Terrorist Attacks,
with some even cheering the deaths or smugly saying "told you so, its karma"


(2) Same situation for Global Warming. Millions of people in Temperate zones,
and extreme North and South are PRAYING for climate change, which will
open up millions of acres of farmland for new crops and vacation spots.

(3) WW3 has already started fools. And it is in fact in part about limited resources,
or rather conveniently accessible ones, namely OIL, Heroin and Cocaine, gun sales,
and prostitution.

(4) Ergo, WW3 is more inevitable than climate change.

You'd best prepare for WW3 now, and worry about climate change in some possible
future in which you and your family, country, nation or race actually survives.

 

[chrysostom]

If a certain behavior is taxed people might do it less. :idunno:

how do you tax terrorism?

 

[bybee]

The most recent Scientific American has an article called 'How to Break the Climate Deadlock'. The main idea in the article is that progress on climate change can't be made with only reliance on free markets. There must be some government intervention, through carbon taxes or a trading system and then investment in renewable technology.

As some real world examples the author cites British Columbia. I found this brief article. http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax

BC’s levy started at C$10 ($9) a tonne in 2008 and rose by C$5 each year until it reached C$30 per tonne in 2012. That works out to 7 cents of the C$1.35 per litre Vancouver residents pay at the pump to fill up their vehicles. Because the tax must, by law in BC, be revenue-neutral, the province has cut income and corporate taxes to offset the revenue it gets from taxing carbon. BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too. BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16% (although declines levelled off after the last tax increase in 2012). During that same period, per-person consumption in the rest of Canada rose by 3%. “Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa and head of Sustainable Prosperity, a pro-green think-tank. At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country.

She also gives a couple examples of using a trading system. The Clean Air Act to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions and what California did to improve air quality. China is mentioned also but there is no real data on their success or failure.

Another point is that markets alone can't work because markets don't account for external costs. The government would need to provide that through the use of a carbon tax or trading system. Once that's instituted then the markets can work from there. On the technology side, any major breakthrough and production on a large scale will need government assistance.

To quote something which sort of summarizes the article:

A hefty price on carbon, coupled with major investment in technology, can definitely limit climate change. But both steps require government action. That suggests one other necessary step: we need to stop demonizing government and recognize its crucial role in doing the most important thing that markets do not do, which is prioritizing and sustaining the common good.

Of course this assumes you think climate change is a problem. The arguments in this article are mostly for those who recognize a problem but want to leave it to free markets. Thing is, I bet that's a small group. Most people who recognize a problem are probably also those who don't mind government action. :chuckle:


Does British Columbia provide a good framework to duplicate in the US? What should be done to spur real change?

One of the problems in America is that the government has no credibility AT ALL in terms of ever reducing a tax once it has been enacted.:shocked:

 

[chrysostom]

One of the problems in America is that the government has no credibility AT ALL in terms of ever reducing a tax once it has been enacted.:shocked:

we do need to tax energy
so
everyone is financially encouraged to conserve it

 

[kmoney]

One of the problems in America is that the government has no credibility AT ALL in terms of ever reducing a tax once it has been enacted.:shocked:

Why would we reduce it?

 

[kmoney]

how do you tax terrorism?

Put a hefty tax on the Koran?

 

[kmoney]

Nations sign climate accord.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-idUSKBN0TV04L20151212

The global climate summit in Paris agreed a landmark accord on Saturday, setting the course for a historic transformation of the world's fossil fuel-driven economy within decades in a bid to arrest global warming.

After four years of fraught U.N. talks often pitting the interests of rich nations against poor, imperiled island states against rising economic powerhouses, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared the pact adopted to the standing applause and whistles of delegates from almost 200 nations.

"With a small hammer you can achieve great things," Fabius said as he gaveled the agreement, capping two weeks of tense negotiations at the summit on the outskirts of Paris.

Hailed as the first truly global climate deal, committing both rich and poor nations to reining in rising emissions blamed for warming the planet, it sets out a sweeping long-term goal of eliminating net man-made greenhouse gas output this century.

"It is a victory for all of the planet and for future generations," said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who led the U.S. negotiations in Paris.

"We have set a course here. The world has come together around an agreement that will empower us to chart a new path for our planet, a smart and responsible path, a sustainable path."

It also creates a system to encourage nations to step up voluntary domestic efforts to curb emissions, and provides billions more dollars to help poor nations cope with the transition to a greener economy powered by renewable energy.

Calling it "ambitious and balanced", Fabius said the accord would mark a "historic turning point" in efforts to avert the potentially disastrous consequences of an overheated planet.

The final agreement was essentially unchanged from a draft unveiled earlier in the day, including a more ambitious objective of restraining the rise in temperatures to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, a mark scientists fear could be a tipping point for the climate.

Previously, the goal on temperature rise was set at 2 degrees Celsius in 2010.

In some ways its success was assured before the summit began: 187 nations have submitted detailed national plans for how they will contain the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, commitments that are the core of the Paris deal.

While leaving each country to pursue those measures on its own, the agreement finally sets a common vision and course of action after years of bickering over how to move forward.

.....

In a win for vulnerable low-lying nations who had portrayed the summit as the last chance to avoid the existential threat of rising seas, nations would "pursue efforts" to limit the rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as they had hoped.

"Our head is above water," said Olai Uludong, ambassador on climate change for the Pacific island state of Palau.

While scientists say pledges thus far could see global temperatures rise by as much as 3.7 degrees, the agreement also lays out a roadmap for checking up on progress. The first "stocktake" would occur in 2023, with further reviews every five years to steadily increase or "ratchet up" those measures.

It softened that requirement for countries with longer-term plans extending to 2030, such as China, which had resisted revisiting its goal before then.

And for the first time, the world has agreed on a longer-term aspiration for reaching a peak in greenhouse emissions "as soon as possible" and achieving a balance between output of manmade greenhouse gases and absorption - by forests or the oceans - by the second half of this century.

It also requires rich nations to maintain a $100 billion a year funding pledge beyond 2020, and use that figure as a "floor" for further support agreed by 2025, providing greater financial security to developing nations as they wean themselves away from coal-fired power.

Now we have to see what actually changes in the US.

 

[exminister]

Articles

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35092127

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772

 

[ok doser]

Nations sign climate accord.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-idUSKBN0TV04L20151212




Now we have to see what actually changes in the US.

what they're pushing on the cbc is a tax on petroleum, to fund alternative energy

a big tax

a go-out-and-buy-a-bicycle-size tax

 

[genuineoriginal]

The IPCC is lying again, as shown by the following graph:

 

[exminister]

Don't understand why big corporation don't get on board. Exxon Mobil made 4.2B in 2nd quarter. Since fossil fuels are a limited resource they would do well to tap into resource that are pretty unlimited.

http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-earns-42-billion-second-quarter-2015

But like the cigarette companies they rather spend that money on fighting it. Now is more important than then. Good luck kids.

 

[exminister]

The IPCC is lying again, as shown by the following graph:

Who is the author of the chart? David MacKay. He believes in pursuing all potential avenues of energy. Don't see anything wrong with that?
Half measures is the problem.

Because Britain currently gets 90% of its energy from fossil fuels, it’s no
surprise that getting off fossil fuels requires big, big changes – a total
change in the transport fleet; a complete change of most building heating
systems; and a 10- or 20-fold increase in green power.


Given the general tendency of the public to say “no” to wind farms,
“no” to nuclear power, “no” to tidal barrages – “no” to anything other
than fossil fuel power systems – I am worried that we won’t actually get
off fossil fuels when we need to. Instead, we’ll settle for half-measures:
slightly-more-efficient fossil-fuel power stations, cars, and home heating
systems; a fig-leaf of a carbon trading system; a sprinkling of wind turbines;
an inadequate number of nuclear power stations.


We need to choose a plan that adds up. It is possible to make a plan
that adds up, but it’s not going to be easy.


We need to stop saying no and start saying yes. We need to stop the
Punch and Judy show and get building.


If you would like an honest, realistic energy policy that adds up, please
tell all your political representatives and prospective political candidates.

http://www.withouthotair.com/c32/page_250.shtml

 

[exminister]

Not sure what to make of the chart by David MacKay (trouble finding it). He definitely acknowledges that there is a problem with CO2 pollution.

What to do now?

http://www.withouthotair.com/c29/page_222.shtml

 

[genuineoriginal]

Who is the author of the chart? David MacKay. He believes in pursuing all potential avenues of energy.

Yes, it appears he can make charts but cannot see what the charts say.

The charts say that the burning fossil fuels comprises only 3.27% of carbon dioxide emissions.

Pretending for a moment rotfl that carbon dioxide emissions is really a problem darwinsm, the chart shows that it would be a lot more effective to deal with the massive emissions of the ocean and the biosphere instead of trying to make any changes with the minuscule emissions from fossil fuels.

We know that carbon dioxide is a teeny-tiny part of the atmosphere

and that over 96% of carbon dioxide emissions come from natural sources

Imposing limits on 3.27% of the carbon dioxide emissions in order to change the the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from .035% to .03% is a stupid plan, but when you add in the fact that the method of doing this will disrupt the economy of the world and funnel wealth into the pockets of the richest 1%, it is obvious that the plan is completely evil.