The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Can we reverse global climate change? Part I > Comments

Can we reverse global climate change? Part I : Comments

By James Hansen, published 1/6/2009

Cap-and-trade is a Temple of Doom for life on Earth, worshipped by lawmakers afraid to confront fossil special interests.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The article wrongly assumes there is no dividend with cap and trade. Under Australia's ETS should it ever happen 100% of the proceeds will supposedly go towards green projects. There are some crucial advantages of c&t over a carbon tax and some of the loopholes like offsets and exemptions will no doubt recur under a tax. The current problem isn't so much the mechanism but the lack of will to do anything at all. As in Australia it seems likely the US c&t scheme will be undermined by giveaways. No pain no gain. Renewable energy quotas and sector specific technical standards (eg vehicle mileage) may create conflicting aims. For example a shift from coal to gas fired generation will reduce CO2 but won't meet a renewables quota.

Even if the ETS was administered in a tough way there are other foibles. Australia exports four times as much black coal as it uses domestically yet exports are untouched. The rate of cap reduction may be too weak. The dividend from c&t auction receipts may be frittered away on futile endeavours like carbon capture and storage.

As a compromise between a cap and a tax based system perhaps a no-exceptions fixed CO2 price could be brought in. Everybody from petrol refiners to brown coal miners should pay say $20 a tonne on in-stream and downstream CO2 emissions. That should include export coal and LNG. The government should then resist lobbying and other forms of blackmail as follows:
Industry; we have offsets. Government; not interested.
Industry; we're vulnerable to trade losses. Government; have a cash subsidy instead but justify it to your competitors.
Industry; we'll go offshore. Government; see ya.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 1 June 2009 9:09:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personally I think any effort to reduce polution should be applauded.

However can we reverse climate change?

If any one has study, the past climate changes that have occured in Australia, will know that climate change happens and there is sweet $%@# all that we can do about.

The best the human population can do is to adapt to the changes, if the sea level rises, as it has done so in the past, even before the industrial revolution. The people simply moved to higher ground. When sea levels fell, people moved to the lower ground.

Cities and past civilisations have risen and fallen on the rise of the tide.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 1 June 2009 9:20:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most Interesting: A posting from NASA predicts low solar activity. The following statements are extracted from the NASA post.

“May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots. “

"If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78," says panel chairman Doug Biesecker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center”

Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
>>>>>>>>>

So maybe we should stop worrying about the non problem of anthropogenic global warming.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 1 June 2009 10:50:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<”Cap-and-trade is a Temple of Doom for life on Earth, worshipped by lawmakers afraid to confront fossil special interests.”>

This is no dooms day scenario, it's a dooms day fact, only held back by the concept of time. When you add the exemptions covering every major corporate polluter and exporter, there's no incentive to reduce fossil fuel consumption, just another excuse to raise prices and increase profits. The only outcome will be richer polluting corporations and higher charges for consumers, all big business will increase charges, when they have to pay pollution taxes, as we are seeing happening and being forecast by government and business. Any deadlines or targets will be softened until they don't exist, which they are already doing on a large scale. What solution is that, other than fatalistic stupidity.

<”Can we reverse climate change?”>

There's no chance of reversing climate change until the major cause is removed, with all problems, you remove the cause first and repair the damage. Ideological humanity promotes the causes, accelerating the damage, sounds like a run away cancer to me and denialist perpetrators. The inconvenience caused by humanity changing it's approach to energy, would he minuscule if done properly, for the benefit of the planet and not just the ideological elite.
Posted by stormbay, Monday, 1 June 2009 10:50:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, stormbay, why not step up to the plate and top yourself for Mother Gaia?

Leadership by example, and all ... ;)
Posted by Clownfish, Monday, 1 June 2009 11:26:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clownfish said.........

"Well, stormbay, why not step up to the plate and top yourself for Mother Gaia?

Leadership by example, and all ... ;)"

Well, you certainly got the first part of your name right! Suggesting someone top themselves is not only a stupid and childish utterance, it also contributes nothing to any discussion concerning the article.

In my business, mental health, I see many people on a daily basis who would commit suicide simply because of your silly suggestion. That's how damaged their functionability is! There's certainly no excuse for your insensitivity! Maybe the moderators are on a tea break this morning!

I'm guessing the name "Clownfish" has been taken from the children's cartoon film "Finding Nemo"? The use of the term "topping yourself" is an Americanism that seems to be overtaking the correct term which is "suicide" and probably gives a good indication that you watch far too much television instead of lifting your head out of dark places and realising that the rate of use of natural resources can have only one outcome for humanity and it's all bad!

Attempting to reduce carbon based climate change won't alter the fact that the resources needed to keep business functioning as usual are depleting at an alarming rate and our children and grandchildren will eventually pay for the folly of past generations.
Posted by Aime, Monday, 1 June 2009 1:34:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The traders are already setting up to trade permits.
They are salivating at duplicating the Russian oligarchs ripping off
of the European trading scheme.

I think the whole thing will be an unmitigated disaster.
Its like the pollies are on the back of a tiger and are not game to get off.
When peak oil hits here as we only have about 45% of our own supplies
the US & European companies will elbow the local buyers out of the
market and that will give us a very big reduction in CO2 output.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 1 June 2009 1:45:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do we want to reverse Climate Change, it's a natural process, like volcanoes or tectonic plate movement. (a question, if we could, to go with your logic, reverse it, when should we stop reversing? Is there some preferred time period/temperature profile you'd like, does everyone agree with that, or is it just your pick that counts?)

What foolishness, in years to come our generation will probably be laughed at for our gullibility and arrogance.

(Q&A you still haven't answered my question about that website "http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/ .. I am not limited by word/post limits there."

If that's not your website, why would you say you are not limited by word/post limits? Come on, be honest with us, is it your website?)
Posted by rpg, Monday, 1 June 2009 1:45:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just as the tax system is full of rorts, so will any cap and trade system be.
If we don't want to have another govt dept as big and as compromised
as the tax dept already is we need to have a simple tax system.
We have a simple but effective GST lets do it with carbon, no one
then is able work the system thru courts or anywhere else, no need to
attend special rights.
The sales point should be the point of collection of such a tax.
forget cap and trade too hard to account for.
Posted by fluff4, Monday, 1 June 2009 2:11:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no chance whatever of any reduction in industrial emissions. As is now clear the various countries concerned - particulalry China and India - are never going to agree on any limits, let alone keep to them.
But what happens if all this extra CO2 does pour into the atmosphere and nothing whatever happens? CO2's effects saturate after a time - there is no argument over that point. The gas warms to a point and then no more. The climate models we hear so much about rely on a feedback mechanism, which is almost entirely assumed, for the additional warming.. Hanson will be very embarassed if the recent cooling trend continues..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 1 June 2009 2:12:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg
Like you perhaps, I'm a skeptic!
I would point out tho, a tax collected in Australia is less likely to bring on the big rortes. The world has chosen to accept that carbon is a pollutant!
What you and I want is a system that is flexible and can be adjusted
with new knowledge.
The tax then collected"when we find that it's all a hoax" even if partly true can be offset in some manner. Offsetting in a CT system
of course is too hard to even contemplate.
fluff4
Posted by fluff4, Monday, 1 June 2009 2:34:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Aime, whoever said that greens were a bunch of humourless gits obviously didn't know what they were talking about (Jeez, I even put a smiley in there to make obvious to even but the most dunderheaded dullard that I was ... JOKING)!

Far from one of those dreadfully vulgar "Americanisms", if instead of jumping to conclusions, you had tried a bit of research, I think you'd find that the OED records "top (off)" as a colloquialism for killing (esp. by execution) from 1718, and the Australian National Dictionary Centre records it as AIF slang from WWI.

Oh, and you were wrong about Clownfish, too: I've been using as a nom-de-net since long before "Finding Nemo", for many reasons which I'll keep to myself.

Perhaps you need to get over your little attack of the vapours and stop! using! so many! exclamation marks!
Posted by Clownfish, Monday, 1 June 2009 3:09:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of us spooked by climate predictions. Some of us are spooked by the risk that doing something about climate change will stuff the economy and push us out of a job. James Hansen and his ilk are not helping with their consatnt "we must put a price on carbon" mantra. It is an expensive, potentially destabilizing approach because it depends on pushing up the price of the dirty alternative to drive change.

We needd to think outside the "we must have a grand ETS style scheme that aspires to be "the answer to everything"" and "we must put a price on carbon" mindsets. We need to take the effort to look at the issues involved in cleaning up major sources of emissions and devise separate schemes that are optimal for the source/industry.

For example, if we are concerned about the fuel consumption of new cars perhaps we should ask ourselves whether it is smarter to try and do this by putting up the price of fuel OR to leave the price of fuel alone and to simply use regulations to drive down the average fuel consumption of new cars?

Or perhaps we should ask ourselves if it is smarter to drive investment in clean electricty by putting a price on carbon that is high enough to justify investment in clean electricty (PRICE OUTCOME: Average price has to jump above the price of clean electricty before investment starts.) OR Drive investment by negotiating price and sales guarantees for the supply of clean electricity? (PRICE OUTCOME: Average price only ramps up slowly as the percentage of clean electricty increases. For more details see http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/05/27/guest-post-ets-is-the-problem-not-the-answer/

We need some fresh thinking re how we should manage emissions reduction.
Posted by John D, Monday, 1 June 2009 3:24:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i agree with the writers theory that the tax should go to the people[not to big buisness or specualators]..which it wil..clearly revealed by those lobbieing for it[economists]

its a new tax GLOBALly folks..[the sooner you wake up to that fact the better]..not one sinking island will be saved..[because its not a case of water rising but islands sinking]..as previously posted,

also if warming STATE warming..[this climate CHANGE buzzword covers the natual cooling and warming CHANGE..that climate will inevitably change is beyond dispute[but that carbon leads the change is

<<To begin with,..cap and trade is a misnomer...A “cap” increases the price of energy,..as a tax does.<>>

<<It is wrong and disingenuous to try to hide the fact that a cap is a tax.>>

<<Other characteristics of the “cap” approach is that because of unpredictable price volatility it makes millionaires on Wall Street and other trading floors but offers the public little.>>

<<Offsets are usually allowed and often poorly substantiated and verified,..creating more uncertainty.>>

<<The case in point is the European experience:..they spent $50 billion on carbon trading,..their CO2 emissions actually increased,.. and the largest payment went to a German coal-burning utility!>>

>>Cap-and-trade is fraught with opportunities for special interests, political trading,..obfuscation from public scrutiny,..accounting errors,..and outright fraud.>>..EGSACTLY
Posted by one under god, Monday, 1 June 2009 3:26:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, we cannot reverse climate change. We cannot do anything about climate change. We have to wait until the climate changes itself.

No need to bother with Part 2, thankyou.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 1 June 2009 3:49:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Global warming from any cause, generally proceeds a mini ice age.
CO2 emissions do enhance greenhouse gases but only when there is cloud cover and water vapor around. We can't control the weather or climate so let us learn to adapt. Particularly produce food adequately.

Certainly try to reduce pollution, engage in sustainable
agriculture and stop the use of chemical fertilisers (non organic) and
pesticides and herbicides. Sea levels have risen and lowered all over
the globe at various times. But during ice ages etc., they are lower
than today's levels. The trouble is the colder the planet gets, and
some scientist will and do agree we are an ice planet. It's only been
in the last 10,000 years agriculture has been established, and that
couldn't have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere before this, other than in Middle East. Nor was the Northern Americas, Asia or Europe occupied by humans, they all went South until 12,000 - 10,000 years ago. So we should welcome warmer temps. As Putin remarked, a few more centigrade will assist our agriculture.

However, the industrialized nations are contributing to CO2 emissions. But so is volcanoes, and fossil fuels. And uncontrolled coal surface fires in China, India and Indonesia.

We need to explore renewable energy resources, solar and please
don't let us lose electricity, because that will place human kind back in the dark ages. Excuse the pun.

We must be able to sustain our agriculture otherwise we will die.
Posted by Bush bunny, Monday, 1 June 2009 4:19:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, a tax on carbon, please. No favoring special groups, no complicated horse trading, just a fast reduction of coal use.

In public policy, complexity itself is a flaw, look the the National Electricity Market? does anyone think that is working well?
Posted by Karin G, Monday, 1 June 2009 4:58:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A tax for carbon emissions?
Yes! Perfect!
But it should not be returned to people indiscriminately.

Instead, it should be used to PAY PEOPLE FOR REMOVING CARBON from the atmosphere, the same payment per unit carbon as the tax for emissions of carbon.

Remember that, it would give a sequesterer 3.67 times more for char sequestration that the tax for CO2 emissions.

By that, making char and digging it into agricultural land would be a good affair, not to mention the improvement of the soil.

Inventing a good verification model would give poor people a chance to economical improvement, since making char needs low investments.

However, the verification model should be combined with payment restrictions: If you make harm to the ecosystems or emit harmful gasses during the charring process, you should not be paid.
FG
Posted by folkeg, Monday, 1 June 2009 6:46:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whichever it is, a tax or cap it has to be comprehensive and not riddled with loopholes and perverse subsidies to major polluters. The Australian ETS is about as full of holes as you can get and will achieve nothing other than another squad of bureaucrats to administer it and continual pressure from vested interests to further erode the already worthless scheme.

Theoretically a tax would indeed be simpler to implement that an ETS but would leave the cap up to the market to determine at any level of tax. An ETS on the other hand would set the cap but leave the price of the permits ie the tax up to the market to determine.
Posted by kulu, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 1:51:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
im still not getting que warrento..[by what right]

can anyone point out in the constitution..where govt has the right to create this..''credit'.. for carbon..[that its giving to big buisness?]

this credit that is convertable..into a new compulsory tax on everything we buy and sell...[that seemingly will create a new beurocracy..but also a new form of money

[to witt a carbon credit..[or is it a carbon tax]..anyhow we are going to have the debate for this new transaction tax...but by what right is govt creating a carbon credit/a floating value credit that has a market rate but no legitimate reason of being[its not constitutionally legal]to tax carbon[they can tax citisenry/buisness but reveal your authoprity to tax carbon

..its not money yet its credit

clearly..govt is going beyond its brief..its allowed to regulate buisness...but where is its right to give carnon/credit to corperations...the right to issue future tax carbon-credits,..the whole SCEME is twilight zone...

im looking forward to the debate..[to find out by what right]...yes climate change is beyond debate [but succes or failure of this tax, will be if the climate cools..[or if the climate stops changing?

will there be a sunset clause[does the credit become a refund if we begin cooling..or will it then become a warming tax, is this tax to make climate change or prevent us getting any real change..[more [ever more cash /credit]to big buisness from our taxes

who gets our carbon credits[we pay it to shopkeepers..[and they send it where?...these credits come from who..[the treasury..[the fed?..the mint..[what underpins these credits?...who holds the security underpinning the credit..[are we the asset?..

are we creditor..[or debitor..or the security..[or the cash cow..[who is govt representing...who benefits..who is accountable for the truth or faulsity of the facts underpinning this new tax..[is there a point where the tax dies..[or is this new tax forever].,que warrento

ok its name is carbon polution rediction SCEME
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 8:59:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My problem with “punish the polluter”, “polluter pays” and similar emotional thinking is that leads naturally to the “put a price on carbon” approach as the first solution we think of when we want to reduce emissions. Even worse, it encourages us to stop looking for a better approach as soon as we convince ourselves that this emotionally satisfying approach will work well enough to do the job. The problem is that, even though increasing prices will change behaviour, there are often far more cost effective ways of reducing emissions. For example, the following UK review indicated that a 10% increase in the price of fuel would give a drop in fuel consumption of 2.5% within a year rising to 6% in the longer term as the effect of changing car buying patterns took effect.
http://www2.cege.ucl.ac.uk/cts/tsu/papers/transprev243.pdf As a rough approximation, a 10% increase in Australian fuel price would add $3billion to the country's annual fuel bill for these piddiling gains. By contrast, if we left fuel price unchanged and used regulations to drive down the average fuel consumption of new cars we could achieve a reduction of over 50% by simply changing the mix of current models being sold. (Current average for cars is 11.5 l/100km)

In a similar vein, price increases will be a lot lower if price and sales guarantees are used to drive investment in clean technologies. By contrast, ETS and carbon taxes depend on driving the price of the dirty alternative above the full price of the clean alternative to get investment started.

The artificial price increases and supply resrictions that are a feature of ETS should be seen as a last resort, not the answer of choice.
Posted by John D, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Off topic

rpg

I have explained elsewhere. Which part of the following statement do you not understand?

"You are confusing me with somebody else – I don’t have a web site."

Let me try and make it simple for you, in point form:

1. I am limited by word/post limits on OLO.

2. I am not limited by word/post limits at Barry Brook's site

http://bravenewclimate.com/

Now, go to bed and sleep on it.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:06:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A .. got it, I clearly misunderstood, thanks for clarifying.

No, have to be up for a web conference with colleagues in USA.
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 11:10:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy