We can't afford not to tackle AGW

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

I do empathise with your arguement LM, but i'm with GW on this one.

It shouldnt be a tit-for-tat arguement, and no, i'm not one for whacking up taxes.

But if it works...

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't think we can preach to the third world about their continued development , we have already done our share of polluting as we, as an empire, trashed large areas of our world. We cannot 'unwrite' this chapter of our history but we can atone for it.

The U.S. will reap its own rewards and capitalism will surely fail as the world re-aligns to cope with the changes/challenges of this new century.

EDIT for what will we do when the world is bankrupt?

Edited October 30, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[lukenmudge]

EDIT for what will we do when the world is bankrupt?

Let go of worldly posessions, live off the land, not GM crops, be grateful for being alive and most of all...live on, and on, and on, and on....

[Iceberg]

Well the Stern Report is out, probably should have it's own thread but our continue it in here as P3 as put up some links.

Lots to go on, but I am just concentrating on the Governments response and plan to combat AGW.

Taken from the BBC Site with my own comments added:

Create a global market for carbon pricing

-Completely agree Carbon pricing is an effective way of starting to reduce CO2e production.

Extend the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EETS) globally, bringing in countries such as the US, India and China

-Carbon trading is essentially a good idea as long as it's implemented correctly. So I welcome this too.

Set new target for EETS to reduce carbon emissions by 30% by 2020 and 60% by 2050

-I don't think these are agressive enough personally by they must be achievable if we are to truelly limit AGW impact.

Pass a bill to enshrine carbon reduction targets and create a new independent body to monitor progress.

-Yes again agree and the costs of this should be paid by the Carbon trading scheme and CO2e taxation to reduce needless CO2e production.

Create a new commission to spearhead British company investment in green technology, with the aim of creating 100,000 new jobs

- Um... not a big fan of commissions subsides are a better use of the money (see the UK film industry subsidies to show how these work)

Former US vice-president Al Gore will advise the government on the issue.

-As long as he's an unpaid adviser I am happy.

Work with the World Bank and other financial institutions to create a $20bn fund to help poor countries adjust to climate change challenges

-The fund isn't big enough, nor is the world bank the best institution to distribute the money, (look at the problems is caused with forced water privatisation).

Work with Brazil, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica to promote sustainable forestry and prevent deforestation.

A no brainer really but what about indonesia etc.....

Basically I am all for the use of taxation to combat and correct market imperfections which are term negative externalities, AGW is probably the biggest one of these ever.

Capitalism believes in correcting these negative externalities through the use of taxation, hence the real cost of the product, or production of the product is shown to the markets.

Matt

[Iceberg]

I know but,

They said that about bleeding people when they were ill, about sending chuldren up chimneys, about ...

Keep thinking.

I agree Peter but those things took a generation or longer to change, we don't have that time.

We can continue thinking but we have to start acting now with the resources, processes and tools we have.

[Iceberg]

Full copy of the report as well as conclusions summery's etc.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_...view_report.cfm

[parmenides3]

I've nicked this wholesale from Mark Lynas [ http://www.marklynas.org/ ]

because it is an unusual slant on the Stern report and interested me. Apologies to Mr. Lynas; go to his website and make it up to him.

The headlines have all been optimistic - we can tackle global warming with only a 1% cost to global GDP. A rare good news story on the global warming issue, right?

Wrong. The stabilisation pathway this figure refers to is 550 CO2 equivalent (about 500ppm in CO2 only), which will yield anything between three and four degrees warming. Yet, as I've argued in several recent articles, if we pass the two degrees threshold, the chances of runaway global warming impacts kicking in are dangerously high.

Stern suggests that stabilising at 400 ppm CO2 only is well nigh impossible given that we will be there within less than 10 years. But what is impractical for humans may be the only thing which is practical in terms of the planetary biosphere. The report admits that 3-4 degrees would lead to the mass extinction of 50% of species alive today, yet seemingly advocates a stabilisation target that would lead to exactly this outcome. The impact on humanity - especially the poor - would also be catastrophic, a point made very clearly by Christian Aid.

I highly recommend people read the report (the whole thing, not just the Executive Summary) however - it is an excellent review of the latest science, and says very clearly what impacts are likely to arrive with what degree changes. The tables on what stabilisation targets will yield what temperature increases are particularly useful. I do think that the headline figures on both economic damages and climate refugees are major under-estimates, but credit should be given for trying to quantify them at all.

So unlike almost everyone else, the sheer awfulness of our current position made me feel more and more pessimistic the deeper into I got into the Stern review. Evidently the only practically possible course will extinguish half of life on Earth - and even that requires emissions cuts unlikely to be acceptable to the likes of the US and China. The business as usual scenarios, Stern tells us, take the planet into five or more degrees of warming by the end of the century - something my upcoming Six Degrees book suggests will trigger the greatest mass extinction in geological history, one that humanity will be hard-pressed itself to survive.

Make up your own mind. The whole thing is on the web here.

:)P

[Thundery wintry showers]

Capitalism is another of those things that tends to be expressed in black-and-white terms, i.e. we either have all-out capitalism or we have Communism.

In reality there are different degrees of being a capitalist (see Political Compass for example). I tend to think that, as with many things, capitalism is positive in moderation but you can have too much of a good thing. For example, free markets are dictating expansion in the South East against common sense, short-term profits are all that matters, and private companies struggle to improve services because of the resulting erosion of profit margins (take repairing water leaks and improving public transport for example)

What we probably need, IMO, is some kind of regulated market policy, finding a middle ground where economic growth is still important, but social factors are also seen as important- and assigned value of their own if necessary. Otherwise, financial cost-benefit would make highly draconian taxation and restrictions on the public unavoidable, due to the need to avoid sacrificing business profit margins, and the view that recreational and social pursuits are unnecessary whereas work is necessary.

As for playing by the world's rules, rules can be altered. I mean, you could say we should play by the rules of most of the public (i.e. "I'm Alright Jack"), and I can't see that getting anywhere. You don't have to play by a strictly defined, constant set of rules.

In accordance with the above, the "carrot and stick" policies should include development of clean alternatives (carrots) as well as green taxes (sticks). And, even if it means short-term profit sacrifices, these green taxes should apply to businesses as well as the general public (a major reason why I'm not in favour of a 100%-capitalist solution)

I know that the capitalists won't agree with me- e.g. my preferred policy on cars would be a consumption/fuel tax escalator coupled with development of clean fuels, but from a capitalist point of view, differential road user charging is the "way to go", and there are probably many similar examples.

[parmenides3]

I make no apologies for including this link again: it has an amazingly comprehensive list of links to just about everything that has been printed, published, reported or blogged in the past week; you need to scroll down the page to appreciate the sheer detail. reading two or three of the different online news reports on 'Stern' is an interesting diversion, looking at how differences of tone, attitude and interpretation can make one publication sound totally different.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

A long browse thoroughly recommended, as is adding it to your favourites.

:)P

Edited October 30, 2006 by parmenides3

[Mr Sleet]

Well Mr Lynas must be a very fast reader, 700 pages in a few hours, most impressive. I hope he sells lots of his books.

It seems like a reasonable piece of work, the Stern report, however I'm pretty sure the Government will use it to simply jack up taxes ( stick, stick and more stick- no carrot.) What would be more tolerable would be to use the 10 billion pounds to massively subsidise household solar panel installation, which costs about 10 k per house.

This would give people something back as well as reinforce the reduction in emissions.

However, i don't hold out any hope.

Also, you cannot just take out 100pounds per month from a family budget and see no affect on the economy-such a tax hike would be equivalent to about 6 p on the basic rate of tax or 4 percent on interest rates. that would have a devastating effect on our economy, recession guaranteed. The only solution would be a drastic cut in interest rates, slashing the income of pensioners and creating a runaway housing boom, then recession.

The solution is to make the tax hikes revenue neutral, but you can only give people the money back in a way which means that they cannot simply use it to pay for the tax increases-that would be pointless ie subsidise personal clean energy.

One other thing, the last time Blair warned us of impending disaster ( this time in 45 mins) it was Iraq.

As for Al Gore as environmental advisor, that says it all really

Edited October 30, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[parmenides3]

Mr. S: The report has been available to journalists and policy makers for some time now, as is normal with such extensive publications, so he'll have had plenty of time to read it.

As for the report, it's really just making official what a lor of people have been saying for some time now. But it is the making official bit which is so critical here.

It is also important to separate the report's findings and recommendations from the policy decisions that are made in its name. The government's strategy is one possible response, and seems to focus on making us pay for polluting/ CO2 emissions, rather than actually investing in new technology, better climate modelling, research and development, or even advance adaptation and mitigation strategies.

My feeling on this is that we are not going to be able to avoid a recession at some point, but that the pace and degree can be managed so as to make it less extreme.

The Al Gore thing is pure PR. There are plenty of highly respected and experienced climate scientists (Hadley, Tyndall, CRU...) who already provide input into government-level planning. but they have no say on the economic response or consequences.

It will be interesting to see if this gets any air time across the pond, or whether some more pressing news, such as snow in Missouri, or a cat that weighs 4 stone, is more important to the US media.

PS; Lynas was one of the speakers at the Party conferences last month, but his presentation was ignored by the media in favour of Hawkesworth's (rather good) one about the cost of CO2 reductions; in his estimates, about a 1-2 year slowdown between now and 2050 in development.

Don't forget, the IPCC AR4 is due out in January, and drafts will already be winging their way around Whitehall, no doubt. That'll be the next big climate story, unless, of course, a new paper suddenly appears from the ether with the answers...

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Mr S. After reading your post I went on to watch newsnight and there was a spent old ex- chancellor spouting similar and being thoroughly ignored/dismissed by the other interviewee's (rather like a flat earther at a NASA moonshot). Surely the nails are now being firmly hammered into the climate skeptics coffin?

Failure to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for our impact on our planet will now surely make the likes of Lawson et al nothing more than annoying filibusterers?

[Thundery wintry showers]

One of the problems with the news coverage was that it sounded like the reporters had just accepted without question the usual environmentalist dogma about "it's all the general public's fault" and "the evil motorists are the main problem" sort of thing, though air travel has started to also appear on the agenda.

I've often found from discussion with many hardcore environmental group members (mainly at Lancaster University) that there's a tendency to accept the views of the group without question- most of the time when I questioned their assertions I'd get "they are true because they are true" as a response.

The problem isn't so much their acceptance that there is a problem, but rather how we set about dealing with it. Industry providers are also partly at fault for using inefficient pollutive practices and selling pollutive goods to consumers; we need to be tackling the whole problem, not just some of it.

[Devonian]

Well Mr Lynas must be a very fast reader, 700 pages in a few hours, most impressive. I hope he sells lots of his books.

It seems like a reasonable piece of work, the Stern report, however I'm pretty sure the Government will use it to simply jack up taxes ( stick, stick and more stick- no carrot.) What would be more tolerable would be to use the 10 billion pounds to massively subsidise household solar panel installation, which costs about 10 k per house.

This would give people something back as well as reinforce the reduction in emissions.

However, i don't hold out any hope.

Also, you cannot just take out 100pounds per month from a family budget and see no affect on the economy-such a tax hike would be equivalent to about 6 p on the basic rate of tax or 4 percent on interest rates. that would have a devastating effect on our economy, recession guaranteed. The only solution would be a drastic cut in interest rates, slashing the income of pensioners and creating a runaway housing boom, then recession.

The solution is to make the tax hikes revenue neutral, but you can only give people the money back in a way which means that they cannot simply use it to pay for the tax increases-that would be pointless ie subsidise personal clean energy.

One other thing, the last time Blair warned us of impending disaster ( this time in 45 mins) it was Iraq.

As for Al Gore as environmental advisor, that says it all really

Few people have been so maliciously misquoted and spun against as Al Gore (1977 onwards)

[noggin]

If climate change is caused by pollution by us humans, then what can I do about it? I already am as environmentally friendly as I can be. It makes me really angry when I see stupid people in their un-necessarily huge cars belching out goodness-knows-what muck. Stupid people who try to keep up with the Joneses because for some reason material possessions seem to be what is important to them...what about all the pollution caused by the manufacturing processes? What about disposal of the "stuff" once a new and improved "one" comes out? People who just "have" to have three or four foreign holidays a year because they work "so hard" and deserve these "treats" without a thought of what muck the aircraft are belching out.

........and half the time they are up to their eyeballs in debt to get it all.

I try to be a good Earthling, as do many people, but all around me I see so many people who don't, who care only for their selfish selves.

Makes me want to weep........

[Gray-Wolf]

Few people have been so maliciously misquoted and spun against as Al Gore (1977 onwards)

I fully agree, I believe Mr G. is an Honorable and honest man. The U.S. lost a fine president when they cheated him out of the White House with their oil money and greed.

Do you think he'd have taken the world on the same path as Daft as a B®ush has??

Blair has to deal with the U.S. but Gore would have made a much better partner in those dealings. Another 10yrs wasted.

EDIT Sorry Noggin , hadn't read your fine post before I set about mine.

I understand and empathise with the frustration that living among these unthinking, I, me, mineing, self important, self interested, perverse, Thatcher spawn bad humans can bring. The nack is to do unto others as you would have done to yourself and to let them stew in their own brand of bankrupt morality............the day will come (very soon?) when you will be able to stand up straight and look any person in the eye as you account for 'what you did' to help avert the mass murder that will occur by filibustering procrastination of the majority of first world in their 4*4 blind mindedness.

Edited October 31, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[Essan]

Im all for doing something about the pollution worldwide, whether it is actually affecting our climate, is another matter, but why should we the tax payers pay for changes? Yes the changes are good and i agree with their implementation, but increasing the costs of fuel and other green taxes is pointless. Will it stop people from using their cars if tax on petrol/litre goes up say 20p? Nope. People will put up with it because for many it is essential to their lives.

No, but what if that money was then used to change things so that people didn't need to use their cars o much? Reopen village schools, local hospitals, subsidise rural post offices etc .....

Properly thought through this could work and even turn out (reasonably) popular. Of course, for that to happen we would need to remove all politicians and bureaucrats from govt ........ So like as not this will prove yet another lost opportunity used simply to raise funds to pay for minister's bigger houses, bigger cars and more frequent air flights .....

btw anyone who says there's no point in us reducing our carbon emissions, when it makes so little difference on a global scale, think about this:

Do you throw your litter down on the street and out of the car window? Because with so much litter around, taking it home with you makes no real difference.......

(Oh, and anyone who answers yes to that question should seriously think about emigrating before I find out where you live )

[Mr Sleet]

Mr S. After reading your post I went on to watch newsnight and there was a spent old ex- chancellor spouting similar and being thoroughly ignored/dismissed by the other interviewee's (rather like a flat earther at a NASA moonshot). Surely the nails are now being firmly hammered into the climate skeptics coffin?

Failure to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for our impact on our planet will now surely make the likes of Lawson et al nothing more than annoying filibusterers?

Yes I saw that too. Instead of going off on one would you kindly like to point out in my original post where I deny the existence of AGW ?

For what it's worth I think we are probably ( not totally convinced) the cause of the problem, and we shouldn't be afraid to start the ball rolling. My point was that if the Government wants to push up green taxes so high, they will have to give the money back in some way that when it is spent, it is environmentally friendly. My suggestion to heavily subsidise personal home solar panels was a constructive one.

You are obviously coming at it from the " lets stop Capitalism" camp. Well that debate finished in the 1990's.

As for Al Gore, he has never got over losing the election to Bush, plain and simple. God I hope my taxes aren't paying for him.

Edited October 31, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Mr Sleet]

Mr. S: The report has been available to journalists and policy makers for some time now, as is normal with such extensive publications, so he'll have had plenty of time to read it.

As for the report, it's really just making official what a lor of people have been saying for some time now. But it is the making official bit which is so critical here.

It is also important to separate the report's findings and recommendations from the policy decisions that are made in its name. The government's strategy is one possible response, and seems to focus on making us pay for polluting/ CO2 emissions, rather than actually investing in new technology, better climate modelling, research and development, or even advance adaptation and mitigation strategies.

My feeling on this is that we are not going to be able to avoid a recession at some point, but that the pace and degree can be managed so as to make it less extreme.

The Al Gore thing is pure PR. There are plenty of highly respected and experienced climate scientists (Hadley, Tyndall, CRU...) who already provide input into government-level planning. but they have no say on the economic response or consequences.

It will be interesting to see if this gets any air time across the pond, or whether some more pressing news, such as snow in Missouri, or a cat that weighs 4 stone, is more important to the US media.

PS; Lynas was one of the speakers at the Party conferences last month, but his presentation was ignored by the media in favour of Hawkesworth's (rather good) one about the cost of CO2 reductions; in his estimates, about a 1-2 year slowdown between now and 2050 in development.

Don't forget, the IPCC AR4 is due out in January, and drafts will already be winging their way around Whitehall, no doubt. That'll be the next big climate story, unless, of course, a new paper suddenly appears from the ether with the answers...

:)P

Fair points P3.

[Thundery wintry showers]

No, but what if that money was then used to change things so that people didn't need to use their cars o much? Reopen village schools, local hospitals, subsidise rural post offices etc .....

Properly thought through this could work and even turn out (reasonably) popular. Of course, for that to happen we would need to remove all politicians and bureaucrats from govt ........ So like as not this will prove yet another lost opportunity used simply to raise funds to pay for minister's bigger houses, bigger cars and more frequent air flights .....

btw anyone who says there's no point in us reducing our carbon emissions, when it makes so little difference on a global scale, think about this:

Do you throw your litter down on the street and out of the car window? Because with so much litter around, taking it home with you makes no real difference.......

(Oh, and anyone who answers yes to that question should seriously think about emigrating before I find out where you live )

Much sense in the above.

I think the main problem is that there doesn't seem to be much evidence of the "carrot" type policies covered above, to accompany the green taxes. That's probably what's annoying a lot of people. But I do agree that there is hope that it may be possible to cut emissions in ways that may be relatively popular, provided it's thought through properly- and the above suggestions seem reasonable.

[Devonian]

Yes I saw that too. Instead of going off on one would you kindly like to point out in my original post where I deny the existence of AGW ?

For what it's worth I think we are probably the cause of the problem, and we shouldn't be afraid to start the ball rolling. My point was that if the Government wants to push up green taxes so high, they will have to give the money back in some way that when it is spent, it is environmentally friendly. My suggestion to heavily subsidise personal home solar panels was a constuctive one.

You are obviously coming at it from the " lets stop Capitalism" camp. Well that debate finished in the 1990's.

As for Al Gore, he has never got over losing the election to Bush, plain and simple. God I hope my taxes aren't paying for him.

OT but Gore didn't loose the election, Bush 'won' it (with a little bit of help from his friends)...

Unpleasant fact alert: Gore got the most votes in 2000.

Btw subsidies for renewable energy should increase. Isn't it right that this years puny budget for grants to homeowners too install renewable energy systems has allready been used up? Finally, since there are no proposals down on paper yet, who's to say green taxes wont be revenue neutral?

[Mr Sleet]

OT but Gore didn't loose the election, Bush 'won' it (with a little bit of help from his friends)...

Unpleasant fact alert: Gore got the most votes in 2000.

Btw subsidies for renewable energy should increase. Isn't it right that this years puny budget for grants to homeowners too install renewable energy systems has allready been used up? Finally, since there are no proposals down on paper yet, who's to say green taxes wont be revenue neutral?

The losing party always says it got the most votes.

Totally agree with the rest though.

[Devonian]

The losing party always says it got the most votes.

Totally agree with the rest though.

Nope, it's a fact that Gore got most votes in 2000. He didn't win the electoral college, but he won the popular vote.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

These tax hikes they are talking about will have one and one effect only, raising coffers for the government. There will be no reduction in flights, in car use etc etc because realistically no one expects there to be, all that will happen is that borrowing will increase . It is just a huge money spinning exercise. How much will that donkey Al Gore be getting as advisor? How much of tax money will go to him to show the false image of antarctica melting.

If anyone really was serious about it then they would totally price hike people out of it. Don't be fooled by what you see or hear.

BFTP

[Devonian]

These tax hikes they are talking about will have one and one effect only, raising coffers for the government. There will be no reduction in flights, in car use etc etc because realistically no one expects there to be, all that will happen is that borrowing will increase . It is just a huge money spinning exercise. How much will that donkey Al Gore be getting as advisor? How much of tax money will go to him to show the false image of antarctica melting.

If anyone really was serious about it then they would totally price hike people out of it. Don't be fooled by what you see or hear.

BFTP

'donkey'?

Do you expect to be taken seriously?