A strange article, with no perceivable practical basis or result.

“If you a concerned about greenhouse gases, a cap on greenhouse gases is what is required”, or a visit to a counsellor, to ascertain why you are unable to accept the science which shows that natural cycles account for all global warming. Human emissions have not been demonstrated to have any effect, on climate, despite the spending of billions of dollars which could have been devoted to useful ends.

“If you are worried deforestation (sic), you create a cap by “fencing off” areas that are not be touched”, or accepting the fact that forests are continually renewed, because, despite what the greenies say, trees are continually growing, and replacing those harvested. Reverse the facilitation of bushfires, brought about by regulations promoted by the greens, if you wish to reduce destruction of forests.

“If you are worried about over fishing, you create a cap”, or if you wish to be constructive, and sensible, consider solutions such as reducing the number of natural predators attacking the fish populations.

Curmudgeon -

One of the reasons discussions on OLO are frequently unedifying is that too many participants can't resist indulging in gratuitous distortions and insults.

"... that should please green activists as their policies are aimed at reducing efficiency". That's not the intention of "green activists", of course. You might think that will be the result of their policies, but you didn't say that and argue your case, you just slagged off "green activists" - all of them, without distinction, whoever they might be.

It was a reasonably constructive discussion until you had to throw that in.

Well said, Geoff. Some OLO-ers treat the Forum as though it were their personal cyber-graffiti wall. Their comments are neither witty or edifying and are very repetitious. Surely the idea of opinion sites is to exercise opinions- exploratory ideas with a bit of supporting evidence, with the view to others providing rational support or negation. Insults are not opinions.

Back on the subject- efficiency is necessary, but not sufficient, to improve the sustainability of our "civilisation" paradigm. Efficiency improvements mean doing more with the same, or the same with less.What we do with this opprtunity determines whether the effort of achieving greater efficiency is worthwhile.

What a revelation this article has been for me. It enables a clear and very substantial distinction to be made between cap-and-trade and a carbon tax. I formerly thought of cap-and-trade as an inefficient alternative to a simpler tax, with no understanding of the different outcomes.

Many thanks. The elegant simplicity of the argument speaks for itself, tax will be nowhere near as effective as a cap. Our efforts must go towards establishing the design of a cap, not merely adopting any cap that the Government might choose. This is a huge subject, the study of which now has, for me at least, much greater merit and immediacy.

Geoff Davies - no it was a 'mutual admiration club' style debate until I pointed out the obvious, and even then not in a particularly confrontational manner. If you don't like people pointing to brutal realities then don't come on the site.
If you want more brutal reality then, although the article is correct, it is pointless. Various regimes have tried to subvert or stop efficiency growth. Australia's now largely abandonded system of tariffs and government control in certain sectors (dairy and egg boards, to name a few) had that effect, as did various command (socialist) economies. The command economies, in particular, have all been abandonded for the very good reasons that they didn't work very well at all and the citizens did not want them.
If the author has a problem with increasing efficiency as such, and wants to go in the opposite direction, how does he intend to do it?

Curmudgeon - from my reading the author had no issue with efficiency in general. His point was that increasing the efficiency with which the economy converts resources into goods and services will not lead to an overall reduction in the consumption of resources.

Some people see no reason why we would want to reduce our consumption of resources. I think that view is dangerous, but they're entitled to it. I can't see why anyone who holds that view would have any interest in this discussion (beyond using the initial opportunity to reassert their position that there is no need to think about reducing resource use by means of improving efficiency or any other means).

Other people may think that there is a need to think about our quantum of resource use. To these people the question of whether improving resource use efficiency is likely to get us there is relevant and important. You are entitled to your view that we are deluded and that our conversation is pointless.