You pay nothing at present for pollution – if you buy electricity or petrol from those retailers’ – you simply pay their price.

In an ETS – the electricity or petrol company will have to pay for its emissions (carbon footprint) and will pass the cost on to you.

They have to account for their carbon footprint annually and buy carbon credits to offset their footprint and pass these credits to the government – the government will “retire” these credits.

Where/who do they buy them from various sources – ideally through a market from such sellers as: (a) forest owners – who plant trees – trees are known as carbon sinks – they suck in carbon and turn it into wood fibre – the growth of carbon in trees can be measured every year and those forest owners can claim carbon credits – these are issued by the government and the forest owner will sell them into the market to emitters. (b)Other sellers of carbon credits are those who build renewable projects in developing countries – like a wind farm in India – they can have the project certified by the UN and once completed – they can receive carbon credits from the UN and sell these into the market.

Who benefits from all this – the planet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Don’t we pay a cost already – it’s called retail price usually! Where should the money from this ‘cost’ go, who should benefit?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Carbon Trading – not just a climate change argument.

Personally – carbon trading aside – I think you could stand around and argue for decades on whether humans are affecting climate change – though – on my research – the science appears overwhelming but it’s ALWAYS important to be able to hear views on both sides without attacking them.

All that aside – would it not make sense – for our long term wellbeing and continued existence to be more renewable in our approach to living? (Financially & Health-wise)

Meaning – instead of drilling and digging holes all over the planet and using polluting and diminishing energy sources – start to use the “free” energy that is given to us everyday -(wind/sun/tides).

I believe we need to start thinking 100 years plus – because – the population is increasing and the demand on the planets resources going forward is huge.

Humans do not tend to make change until something forces them to do so – many examples – give up smoking when faced with lung cancer – start to exercise after the heart attack – cut back spending after they lose a job – etc etc – we do not tend to make changes when faced with threats.

So my view on emissions trading/carbon tax is not just related to the climate change argument but rather it’s a mechanism that can “force” us to make the change to better uses of energy.

I’ve heard compelling arguments on using existing resources better – such as linking all the worlds’ power grids and shunting from night to day in addition to all the wind/solar/tidal ideas.

So placing a “cost” on energy that is not renewable gives an incentive to create uses of renewable energy which is better for everyone not just the planet.

If we don’t create this “penalty” in order to get change – then nothing would be done ever until its too late or the price of oil goes to $200/b.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BJ

Thanks for that. My understanding is improved.

I must confess, though, that my Gaianism leads me to believe that the planet is able to cure itself of unwelcome infestations quite easily. I remember Professor Asimov giving a lecture in Cambridge Mass. many years ago, when he explained to the uninformed the reality of an ‘itch’ and how the human body has an automatic imperative to correct it. He then went on to compare the durational existence of mankind on planet earth as representing about half a second for a human life-time in comparative terms. THEN he frightened us all, with his views on what the automatic response, to us by the planet, might be. What was worse was he then reminded us that the feeling of an itch lasts after the cure has been applied, but it does quickly go away. His view, back then in the mid 80s, was that it would only take about 50,000 years – not even a good night’s sleep comparatively, for all signs of mankind to be eradicated.

Makes you wonder eh! (Well it did me!) What if we are just a very temporary parasite – who will care what we do or don’t do in the next 100 years 50,000 years from now?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No Strings… because the situation THEN didn’t include a rapid rise of temperature following a rapid release of CO2. OTOH, the CO2 levels back then were not the entire forcing but feedback from some other forcing. *A* warming event occurred, but not like *this* warming event.

This did look a little like it… if they got it correct –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2038599.stm

So we can compare the activity of the human species in burning carbon with the meteor impact that killed off the dinosaurs.. which is neat but not as relevant as if there had been the same CO2 without the other effects of the impact.

However, the argument is about temperature and whether a little bit more could cause significant Ice loss.

http://www.mindfully.org/Water/2006/Ice-Sheet-Instability24mar06.htm

The temperature above the arctic circle is affected far more (the models do give this result AND it is measured) than the tropics by warming. The overall temperature of the planet goes up another 1.3 degrees but the temperature above the arctic circle ( Greenland ) goes up more. The ice-cap at the north pole has responded appropriately.

That does look like it happened back then with respect to the temperature, but why the temperature went up THEN…. it isn’t so clear. CO2 isn’t the only forcing in the system. It isn’t often released in such a massive way.

However, it is important NOT to look at the paleoclimate and say X is the same as now because there was the same amount of CO2 or the temperature was the same. The rate of change is important too. Each period is different. The formation of the circumpolar current when South America broke from Antarctica changed things immensely. The formation of the Panama Isthmus changed things. The rise of the Himalayas changed things.

Now we’ve dumped millions of years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere faster than it can be absorbed/removed, and WE have changed things.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I read an interesting statement above . . . . .
>
we have no expectation that a further 1.3 degree rise would melt the ice
No… we have evidence in the paleoclimate records that it will
>

So there is evidence that this warming event has happened before, but in a time before humanity!

So is it possible that we are experiencing a part of the natural cycle of the earth, and that we need to learn how to live through it without Noahisation? I rather think that trying to change an earth cycle would be like trying to move the earth’s orbit; an interesting challenge, but not one we are likely to overcome for a while!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

There is plenty of room for mining. It is ridiculous the amount of land tied up by DOC and not able to be productively used. Do we really need 1/3 of the country off limits and the other 2/3 under burdensome environmental controls?

I wasn’t talking about mining, I was talking about burning coal. I regard mining as hazardous, necessary, lucrative…. but NOT evil. Moreover, I tend to agree that the point that how much land is tied up, may be excessive.

Demented. Well, here it is in a nutshell.

It is only 50-50 we will really get serious Global Warming, because the resource wars due to the other climate changes that come with even a little warming can end with a nuclear winter has an excellent chance of occurring before the Ice-Caps melt enough to be a problem.

Good Luck.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Your last comments are close to demented I think. When is the planet going to tear the people apart? Tuesday next week? Let me know.

I guess one doesn’t see much of the world with one’s head firmly embedded in the sand. It seems that some of us lack the ability or inclination to extrapolate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

> The problem is that WE are not changing the ecosystems of the planet. People who worship growth at any cost are doing that, and they are doing so at the behest of banks and the wealthy

Who are these people who worship growth at any cost? Growthists? I don’t know any. No one wants to be the richest nation on earth but swimming in sludge to get to work. We have a very nice environment in New Zealand. There is plenty of room for mining. It is ridiculous the amount of land tied up by DOC and not able to be productively used. Do we really need 1/3 of the country off limits and the other 2/3 under burdensome environmental controls?

Your last comments are close to demented I think. When is the planet going to tear the people apart? Tuesday next week? Let me know.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Someone in Queenstown drives a yellow hummer with a Vote Green sticker on the bumper (no doubt a property developer as they compete with the Almighty as agents of change).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

We

Do

Not

Want

Trouble!

The problem is that WE are not changing the ecosystems of the planet. People who worship growth at any cost are doing that, and they are doing so at the behest of banks and the wealthy who profit from that growth due to the broken financial model of debt-based fractional-reserve fiat currency shared by every nation in the OECD. Demonstrably broken as every nation in the OECD is learning to our great sorrow.

It isn’t ever a good idea to run an experiment without a control Optimist. It isn’t good science. When it’s the only planet we have, it is positively STUPID. Any scientist will tell you that much. A small minority will claim that what we do won’t matter that much, but none will assert that what we are doing is “good science”.

No ecology, no economy.

Sort of like “No Justice, no peace” only it isn’t the PEOPLE who will tear the place apart. It’ll be the planet tearing the people apart.

respectfully
B J

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

> Come clean with us Optimist. You’re actually one of those ultra-religious whackos who WANTS the troubles to come

That will be the environmentalists. There is enough religion around here to keep the enviro-clergy in clover for years.

If we don’t get a planet-ended event fairly soon there is going to be egg on face all over this blog.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Firstly, we have no expectation of that sort of temperature rise,

Watch who you’re calling “we” ace. The 2 degrees is already baked in. That is “expected” by most of the people who study climate. I am sure you can find one or two oddballs out there, and there are possibilities that MIGHT mitigate if we were incredibly lucky. I don’t like the future of the human species to depend on “luck”.

secondly we have no expectation that a further 1.3 degree rise would melt the ice

No… we have evidence in the paleoclimate records that it will. That’s a little more certain than an “expectation”.

Come clean with us Optimist. You’re actually one of those ultra-religious whackos who WANTS the troubles to come so that the end-time can come and Jesus will return…. He’ll be really p!ssed when he sees how we’ve redecorated the planet.

The earth trembles, the trees shake, the air stinks, the ground breaks,

the face

of the earth

has zits.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

> Isn’t that like saying a bird watcher can’t be taken seriously when talking about birds?

No but a bird-ist probably isn’t the best person to talk about plate glass windows, or cutting down trees, or building motorways or other bird-unfriendly things.

James Hansen has built himself a reputation over many years which he will now have to live with. His statement that 2 degrees will melt the ice is the ultimate straw man. Firstly, we have no expectation of that sort of temperature rise, and secondly we have no expectation that a further 1.3 degree rise would melt the ice.

Any sort of fundamentalist is an unreliable character on which to base general discussions. If I introduced a christian fundamentalist, you would not have expect a dispassionate discussion on the rights and wrongs of abortion. Environmentalists are similarly unable to have a dispassionate discussion on human life on this planet. That is almost inherent in the same, which means someone more interested in the human ‘environment’ (which means everything non-human) than anything else.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

kjuv
Don’t bother feeding right wing trolls. Have a look at the strawman being set up with statements such as “will soon be telling us…” and “James will be telling us..” that is then followed by the “shoot down” statement “this guy is not operating in the real world.” Ignore it, it means nothing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

<<Face it, this guy is not operating in the real world. He is an environmentalist through and through.

Oh I see – A person who is passionate about the planet cannot ipso facto be talking any sense about our effect or otherwise on the planet. Who can then? The financiers? Corporate CEO’s?
Isn’t that like saying a bird watcher can’t be taken seriously when talking about birds?

I’m sure you will once again ridicule my logic, Optimist. But it would be good if you could just take those anti-environmentalists blinkers off for a little while. I understand that many libertarians view the Enlightenment as a great step forward for Mankind. Be that as it may, surely the time has come for another step forward in our understanding of the Universe – namely one that involves mankind en mass accepting the intimate relationship that it has with the rest of the planet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No doubt James Hansen will soon be telling us that a rise of 0.5 degrees from 1850 levels is too high.

As the ice age comes on, James will be telling us that anything more than 2 degrees below 1850 levels will melt the planet.

Face it, this guy is not operating in the real world. He is an environmentalist through and through.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

UN climate talks will focus on wrong temperature targets, NASA’s chief scientist said today.

James Hansen, who is also former US Vice President Al Gore’s science advisor, told a group of British lawmakers in London that the targeted level of keeping global temperatures 2 degrees celsius below 1850 levels is too high.

“The latest observations suggest that a global warming of more than 1 degree celsius leads already to an ice free planet with the situation out of control,” he told the UK Environmental Audit Committee.

According to latest figures global temperatures have already risen by 0.76 degrees celsius since 1850.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

GENEVA: Greenhouse gas levels rose to record highs in 2007, leading to a 1 per cent increase in the overall global warming effect, the World Meteorological Organisation says.

Carbon dioxide rose 0.5 per cent from 2006 to reach 383.1 parts per million, while nitrous oxide levels were up 0.25 per cent, according to latest WMO statistics.

Methane, meanwhile, increased 0.34 per cent, surpassing the highest level recorded in 2003.

“Using the NOAA Annual greenhouse gas index, the total warming effect of all long-lived greenhouse gases was calculated to have increased by 1.06 per cent from the previous year and by 24.2 per cent since 1990,” said the WMO.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen 37 per cent since the 18th century, the WMO said.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Which you vaguely have.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)