General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Dartmoor_Matt]

As far as I am aware, the best and quickest way out of any recession is to spend money. It is afteral when people stop spending money that we have a recession. That is just basic economics.

While we are on the subject, if it was a proper free market, we would most likely not be in a recession, but we aren't, and there isn't a true free market anywhere... the closest might be the US but there is still govt. interference there.

When governments get involved things go t*ts up, always have, always will do.

What this has to do with climate change I'm not sure...?

As soon as oil becomes too expensive or too hard to make a profit from new technologies will be invented. This was shown in the 70's during the oil crisis, companies started looking for new methods, until the goverment stepped in and the price came back down, profits were made again and the companies thought 'well, this is easier again, put the rest into storage - why spend money on speculation when we don't have to'

[Methuselah]

That could be because too many governments give handouts to those unaffected by recession, i.e, those who are rich???

Are we wandering O-T???

[Dartmoor_Matt]

That could be because too many governments give handouts to those unaffected by recession, i.e, those who are rich???

Are we wandering O-T???

You are

As for 'spending' I think we are talking billions as opposed to a couple of thousand here and there, but any spending is good.

(unless it is on needless climate change conferences and so callled 'solutions')

[Thundery wintry showers]

As soon as oil becomes too expensive or too hard to make a profit from new technologies will be invented. This was shown in the 70's during the oil crisis, companies started looking for new methods, until the goverment stepped in and the price came back down, profits were made again and the companies thought 'well, this is easier again, put the rest into storage - why spend money on speculation when we don't have to'

But there may be a substantial intervening period between oil becoming unprofitable and the new technologies being widely developed and used- in a world where the infrastructure is built around fossil fuels it won't be changed overnight. Plus, if the burning of fossil fuels is causing large amounts of AGW, we could precipitate a large amount of human-induced warming over a short space of time, mandating things like billions of pounds' worth of flood defences around our North Sea coastline.

This issue isn't really off-topic because "free market capitalism is the solution to everything" is the most common line of argument among the most ardent anti-AGW groups. One problem with arguments like that is, if we have never had a truly free market, how can we know a truly free market would solve everything? Also, note that many privatised services, like public transport, with minimal government intervention, run on "minimum service for maximum profit" and that a truly free market would result in greenbelt land disappearing far more quickly because companies would be easily able to set up huge precincts in the middle of countryside in order to maximise profits for shareholders, because those meddling government organisations wouldn't be making it harder to get planning permission.

Working from the premise that any one thing is the solution to everything is generally a dangerous thing, especially as it lends itself to circular logic (it's the solution because we know it's the solution).

[Dartmoor_Matt]

But there may be a substantial intervening period between oil becoming unprofitable and the new technologies being widely developed and used- in a world where the infrastructure is built around fossil fuels it won't be changed overnight. Plus, if the burning of fossil fuels is causing large amounts of AGW, we could precipitate a large amount of human-induced warming over a short space of time, mandating things like billions of pounds' worth of flood defences around our North Sea coastline.

This issue isn't really off-topic because "free market capitalism is the solution to everything" is the most common line of argument among the most ardent anti-AGW groups. One problem with arguments like that is, if we have never had a truly free market, how can we know a truly free market would solve everything? Also, note that many privatised services, like public transport, with minimal government intervention, run on "minimum service for maximum profit" and that a truly free market would result in greenbelt land disappearing far more quickly because companies would be easily able to set up huge precincts in the middle of countryside in order to maximise profits for shareholders, because those meddling government organisations wouldn't be making it harder to get planning permission.

Working from the premise that any one thing is the solution to everything is generally a dangerous thing, especially as it lends itself to circular logic (it's the solution because we know it's the solution).

Trouble with public services, and for this example I will use trains is there is no competition, so of course the consumer isn't going to get value for money. Why is there no competition? Partly goverment and their licences and partly the barriers to entry are very high.

But with supply and demand firms will enter and leave markets based on the profitability so I disagree about all the green belt being used up.

Going back to the oil, it isn't going to suddenly be unprofitable, its a gradual process. I am also fairly confident the technologies are there, but while there is money to be made...The oil crisis for example was a relatively short time frame and yet the ideas were there. I see no reason to be overly pessimistic to all this by rushing into knee jerk reactionary solutions which aren't up to the job.

I also don't think it will happen. So this is a rather mute point.

One more point, can we apply the logic (which I agree with) you used regarding the free market, and not knowing it is the solution because we have never had one, to AGW? - Just a thought.

[Methuselah]

The issue I have with the 'free market' (IMO) is that those concerned would be more likely to run-off to some Greek island or luxury yacht, than stay and sort-out any long-term problems...Their main interest is, afterall, the accumulation of personal wealth?

Personally, I wouldn't trust the free market as as far as I could throw it!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think it would be realistic to expect all greenbelt to be used up, but I'm pretty certain that more of it would be. I've often seen companies try to set up new precincts on greenbelt land because it is more profitable (at least in the short term) than in brownfield land. The locals complain about the way the development will affect the character of the area and spoil the nearby countryside. A petition goes to the council, which in some cases intervenes and denies planning permission. The company then has to go elsewhere, or re-apply with revised proposals.

Without that government intervention in the free market it would be far harder for the locals to have their say in this manner. They would just have to accept that profits and jobs came first and that things like asthetics and character of an area were deemed luxuries that shouldn't come into it- unless they could somehow set up a rival market that regulated planning permission.

Regarding AGW, I do agree that it isn't a good idea to assume that it's a major issue, but I also think there's enough evidence out there to show that it exists (the question is more whether it exists to enough of an extent to be significant). But the above posts regarding the oil implicitly assume that AGW isn't a significant issue- when by relying upon fossil fuels until it fails to maximise profits in the short term, we could be committing ourselves to a massive amount of AGW. If it shouldn't be assumed one way, it shouldn't be assumed the other.

The clean technologies are certainly there, but how long will it take to implement them widely? And while the peak oil issue might appear to be something that would be gradual, there's always the risk of us trying to buy our way out of it (as with the UK's policy re. recession) and being hit by something more sudden, later.

There's also an element of false dilemma here- either we trust the free market to solve everything or we make knee-jerk reactions. I (and others) have suggested long-term planning, phasing in a gradual transition towards cleaner, sustainable energy use and reducing reliance on fossil fuels, a proposal which comes under neither category. I certainly don't promote knee-jerk reactions- they tend to produce low returns, high economic/social cost for low environmental gain.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

The issue I have with the 'free market' (IMO) is that those concerned would be more likely to run-off to some Greek island or luxury yacht, than stay and sort-out any long-term problems...Their main interest is, afterall, the accumulation of personal wealth?

Personally, I wouldn't trust the free market as as far as I could throw it!

Interesting. The primary aim of any company is to make money for its owners (the shareholders) what those people do with the money is down to them?

It is generally not individuals, but companies that form a free market, besides you are far more likely to see that with corruption in a socialist state (Russia)

But this really is OT now

[Thundery wintry showers]

My problem with it is that it can become a self-perpetuating circle of "money money money". One key idea of having a strong economy is to be able to use the extra money to engineer social improvements- or environmental improvements as the case may be- in essence the money is largely a means to an end. We do need some element (IMHO at least) of market freedom to enable enough competition to help generate this. But if we end up in a circle where companies try to maximise profits for their shareholders, and this money is then invested in order to maximise subsequent profits for the shareholders, and so on, we end up with the money being the end in itself. The result- social/environmental factors end up continually on the back burner.

And we also get the problem that as this circle of "money -> money -> money" keeps propelling around, business rationalisation occurs (smaller companies being bought by big companies), and the biggest companies become protective of their intellectual property so as to stifle competition from up-and-coming competitors.

Again not the best of circles to be getting into when we have a serious problem with pollution, non-sustainable practices, and quite possibly, AGW.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I assume from your post you think that we should have a tax on all profit to plough into climate change solutions? Aside from being highly unlikely, unpopular etc it would also be spent on what exactly?

[Methuselah]

Interesting. The primary aim of any company is to make money for its owners (the shareholders) what those people do with the money is down to them?

It is generally not individuals, but companies that form a free market, besides you are far more likely to see that with corruption in a socialist state (Russia)

But this really is OT now

Strange you should bring-up the Soviet Union???

IMO, Stalin's acceptance of Lysenko's anti-scientism bears an uncanny resemblence to the current Right Wing's dismissal of AGW science...

Perhaps, it's more to do with powerful individuals' fear of personal loss, than with whatever political faction said individuals like to associate themselves with??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Strange you should bring-up the Soviet Union???

IMO, Stalin's acceptance of Lysenko's anti-scientism bears an uncanny resemblence to the current Right Wing's dismissal of AGW science...

Perhaps, it's more to do with powerful individuals' fear of personal loss, than with whatever political faction said individuals like to associate themselves with??

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lysenkoism

Just right wing is it? Russia afteral denies it quite alot. Oh, and I did say Russia, not the Soviet Union

Oh, and I'm not dimissing science, I am just trying to point out that there is no categoric evidence that CO2 is causing climate change, and there are lots of other things that fit the temperature changes without the need to massage the data.

Which leads us onto the fact that there is little point in taxing everything to the hilt just incase.

Make no mistake though, taxation always has and always will hurt the poorest in society. So if the 'powerful individuals' feel the pinch, the rest of us will be joining the queues for bread...

[Thundery wintry showers]

Again, false dictonomy- how does "using long-term planning to phase in a slow move towards sustainablility" equate to "taxing all profit"? Again I see a false dilemma to yield the conclusion "we should let the free markets decide, because the only alternative is to do something ridiculous".

There is also incentivisation where pollutive practices are taxed and cleaner practices are given government funding, in essence making the cleaner practices more profitable (this can also be used when profit comes at the expense of social factors, e.g. minimum service for maximum profit situations and situations where a company takes advantage of free market capitalism to accumulate a massive share of the market and protect it using IP & licensing deals).

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Because apparently we only have 50 days to save the world?

The trouble is, the sentiment is correct, but if its that simple, why hasn't it been done? What we have instead is massive tax on petrol, tax on flying, etc. etc.

It winds me up when people go on about how because a company has done well, invested wisely, looked after its staff and got bigger and bigger it must somehow be a bad thing. Nothing is stopping other companies coming in and competing. If they offer a better USP, why not?

[Methuselah]

IMO, it's a stick-and-carrot approach that's needed: neither over-centralization nor a free-market free-for-all will solve anything...I mean, the 'right' still hasn't grasped the fact that throwing money at those who already have more than enough, does nothing to keep the economy ticking over - does the Roller really need another cupholder? - whilst the 'left' sometimes still seems to think that money grows on trees???

So, how can anyone trust either of them with something essentially apolitical - i.e. scientific - like AGW??

[Dartmoor_Matt]

It's not the giving of money that keeps the economy rolling, its the spending of money on goods and services from companies which in turn buy more goods/services, pay staff who spend money on goods and services etc and so on.

Anyway thats enough of the economy.

Where does the government get the money to offer the incentives? What incentives? Who says which practice is bad? Generating electricity is the worst, so what, we put a massive tax on that and give it to a wind turbine producer? Who pays in the meantime... oh yes. Us.

[Thundery wintry showers]

It winds me up when people go on about how because a company has done well, invested wisely, looked after its staff and got bigger and bigger it must somehow be a bad thing. Nothing is stopping other companies coming in and competing. If they offer a better USP, why not?

If they offer a better USP then all well and good. If, however, they implement huge developments that devastate the character of a local area, and trample on competition by buying out competitors at every opportunity and acquiring wide-ranging patents and copyrights that they can protect in a way that stifles competition across the industry, it's a very different matter.

One idea of the "carrot and stick" tax approach is that the higher taxes on the pollutive technologies can then be used to fund incentivising on clean ones (though such schemes have to be considered wisely- e.g. the "Kengestion" charge in London costs at least as much money as it raises in extra tax revenue).

But there's another aspect to the socio-economic issues- there's more to the world than money, there are various environmental and social factors that also contribute to well-being. If the aim is to generate as much money as possible and that's all that matters (e.g. shareholders maximise profits in order to maximise further profits which breeds further maximisation of profits) the other factors end up lost. And one of those could be the future of our planet, and another could be the economy in the long term, as what's good for the short term isn't always best for the long term.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I think we are blurring the line between 'economy' and 'society' here, there are plenty of charities and NGO's out there, perhaps more support should be given to those.

The maximisation of profit for shareholders has always been the primary aim of a company, it is the reason for existence. This is not a new idea, it has been around since money itself. I don't think anyone has started a company with the idea that they will pass over all the money to developing a better society, thats not to say companies don't, I know plenty that do help the local area - Deutsche Bank for example have a big community program. Power companies are investing in renewables, car manufactures are developing hybrid and electric cars, aircraft engines are becoming more and more efficient. So advances are there, ready to be developed further. It really isn't all doom and gloom.

[Thundery wintry showers]

But, to quote your previous argument, where does the support to those charities come from? Us? Or does it suddenly become alright because it isn't interfering with the free market?

Companies are indeed starting to invest in renewables, but only when it is profitable in the short term, and that's the main problem- it may be too slow. I'm not saying we should be all doom and gloom, but rather that I think placing faith in the notion that free market capitalism will solve everything is a pretty dangerous route to take. It's also a neat way of saying "maintain the status quo for the foreseeable future and leave it up to others to decide if and when it should change".

I'm aware that maximisation of profit for shareholders is the reason for a company's existance. And that is the problem- when this aim comes at the expense of various other factors which can include environmental factors. Markets will not think of it in terms of probabilistic equations like "investing in cleaner energy today may free up X resources in 20 years' time and shave 2C off AGW", they'll think "maximise profits today, worry about AGW and peak oil if it happens by which time it may already be too late".

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Perhaps better distribution of the tax income?

I don't disagree with what you are saying, if it was a perfect world then I'm sure that we'd be there already, but as the science isn't settled and the need not yet great (in the eyes of many) we aren't there, and the Copenhagen summit will ultimately change nothing, except a few more promises we can't keep, and cost countries more than they can afford at the moment.

[Solar Cycles]

I assume from your post you think that we should have a tax on all profit to plough into climate change solutions? Aside from being highly unlikely, unpopular etc it would also be spent on what exactly?

You might as well give it to bankers than the climate community, at least they are open about how corrupt they are!

[Thundery wintry showers]

the Copenhagen summit will ultimately change nothing, except a few more promises we can't keep, and cost countries more than they can afford at the moment.

Sadly, I think you're right on that one.

I'm not convinced that this whole idea of setting emissions reductions targets is an effective way forward either (was it Mike Hulme who also expressed similar sentiments? I'm not sure).

[LomondSnowstorm]

The bottom line is that, regardless of whether man is in any way affecting the climate or not, we need to move towards a sustainable, fairer world. Although I am fairly doubtful of AGW, and am also very unhappy about the 'carbon credits' scheme, pro-warming 'propoganda' and the absurd legally-binding targets set, which could lead to a huge short-term deficit in energy supplies, the idea of cheaper, more efficient fuels combined with the creation of a fairer society should appeal to most people, regardless of their views on AGW.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6738.html

Seems that climate could well be 30-50% more sensitive to CO2 than we thought. This would not be good if proved true.

[noggin]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091210b.html

The MetO have been peering into their crystal ball again and have seen that......

1) 2010, globally will be warmer than 2009, globally.

2) About half of the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far (1998).

It should be interesting to see how it all pans out.