Here is a whole pile of similar question –> answer style things that respond to common misconceptions

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

BJ,
Maybe I should have been more clear. By sequestration I refer to not just to the anthropomorphic measures but, infact in majority, to the natural processes of our world: the oceans, the trees, the rocks, etc, etc, etc.

I think this is a bad assumption in the long term, as there will, if any meaningful price signal is actually accomplished, be nobody on the planet who can sequester for us as cheaply as we can do it ourselves. Really quickly.

The net transfer to the forestry sector and production of biochar or some such permanent carbon sink, will still keep money in the country. It goes to a new industry, but I think you missed a point about revenue neutral.

I was refering to a national level deficit as Kyoto works at the national rather than individual level. If the carbon was entirely sequestered internally (such as NZ could easily do, esspecially if the sequestration of our ocean areas were considered)then there would be no national level deficit and thus no need to purchase externally.
It should be noted however that if tax is being paid to the government for emmisions but that is not then passed on to the sequestering body (i.e. the state in some cases or other such bodies with significant forrests, etc.) then in the first instance the sequestering bodies are not getting paid and thus are less likely to continue such activities and in the second instance are effectivly being taxed 100% on that sequestration. So in both cases the state, if keeping revenue neutral, is actually decreasing the amount it can spend on other things such as welfare.

I cannot argue the rest of your reply as it seems to be based on the assumption that I refer to anthropomorphic sequestration (though, all things considered, I would think that a rather silly assumption).
*not ment to sound confrontational*

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

OK

First thing is that the premise is not correct. The Carbon cycle is quite capable of “automagically” sequestering some of our output in places OTHER than the atmosphere.

It has been trying to do so for quite some time, but hasn’t been able to keep up with us, not by a lot, but if you check here, the point is made by people who understand that cycle far better than I would pretend to make it, that the CO2 levels we see in the atmosphere could diminish greatly simply by the fact of our not emitting so much. Simply because so much more carbon is everywhere else by mass and there is a lot the ocean and land can do to help us.

A reasonably accessible treatment of the net imbalance is here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/

This is Hansen’s reasoning related to the target.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

In the end we DO have to sequester, but that is not nearly as urgent as the need to cut back the emissions. The numbers are pretty clear. We can’t afford equilibrium at the levels we’re creating, but if we cut back those levels will be dominated by the ocean and land CO2 content, not the atmosphere.

It’s a not-simple thing. It makes it hard to argue the rest of your analysis at this point. Much depends on that initial assumption.

The fact is that it is fortunately still POSSIBLE to achieve useful reductions simply by cutting our net emissions
back to a net that looks like 100% reduction in global emissions by 2080 and 80% by 2050,

Don’t have to sequester a thing, and it will be a bit warmer but within probably safe limits.

The thing is that you are correct. To warm less than 2 degrees we have to sequester more and faster. That gets expensive pretty quick and we would be pushing the envelope of politics to get 30-40% by 2020. We saw how THAT worked out.

So we have to hope someone finds a cheap way of sequestering lots of Carbon, or a cheap way to get into space. There is NO policy, Green or otherwise, that can do it without the reductions if we don’t get one of those.

It is absolutely true we will have to arrange the sequestration. Recall that I said zero net by 2080. That involves sequestration or it involves total reliance on renewables by that time.

OTOH, we need to stop pushing the CO2 out NOW, and long delays while we contemplate the additional challenges entailed in the years after 2020 are not good. We can’t be paralyzed by the fact that the task is impossible… we have to just do it.

That neutralisation necessarily involves purchasing sequestration from an external body.

I think this is a bad assumption in the long term, as there will, if any meaningful price signal is actually accomplished, be nobody on the planet who can sequester for us as cheaply as we can do it ourselves. Really quickly.

The net transfer to the forestry sector and production of biochar or some such permanent carbon sink, will still keep money in the country. It goes to a new industry, but I think you missed a point about revenue neutral.

It is revenue neutral to the government. Not to the population as a whole. TANSTAAFL still applies. The fact that the government doesn’t get more/keep more doesn’t mean that as individuals we don’t have to pay more somewhere. Green policy is to not unnecessarily make government larger, to not make the rich richer and the poor poorer. We don’t know of any way to repeal the laws of thermodynamics, or supply and demand. Money WILL have to be spent.

Another issue is going to be that if it works and emitters cease emitting as much, the tax has to be raised or other taxes have to be increased again, because the emitters will have found ways to cease their abuse of the commons. The distribution of that price signal is the job of the market, but it WILL hit us all in various ways and we will all adjust our behaviours to minimize it.

Which is exactly as it should be.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

BJ,
Dont do coffee. Not one for things bitter.
Sorry about the lack of sense, I realised I had to run for the bus (shreded my tire ).

What I am trying to say is based on the premise that unless global emmision of carbon is equal to global sequestration of carbon then ultimatly the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is going to increase over time. In this application I am saying that even if NZ cuts its emmisions substantially, and the rest of the world does the same, then it it is just delaying the inevitable if we do not also increase our sequestration of carbon above its present level.

While the Green proposal would work with the present Kyoto arrangement, mostly because we will either be positive or not too negative, it is important to note that the present Kyoto arrangement is the product of petty politics and will ultimatly do extremly little to help.
If we were to impliment an agree ment with any hope of actually doing anything then we will be required to offset almost all of our emmisions with sequestrations. If we cannot do this internally then we will need to gain this sequestration externally. If the Green party actually cares then it should nto be promoting policies which only acheive the aims of an agreement which just makes it look like stuff is being done but rather it should promote policies which WILL acheive what we really need to acheive.

The Green idea of a revenue neutral tax involves redistributing the tax burden from the goods to the bads. While it is a good concept it is impractical for the tax for the bads needs to go toward actually reducing the impact of those bads.
If we tax someone whom polutes a river then that tax needs to be at least large enough to clean up the river or the degradation continues, just at a slower pace. The same applies to all ecotaxes, carbon accountancy included.
If a tax is revenue neutral, as proposed by the Greens, then that tax is revenue neutral at the consumer side. If we take $10 each from tom, *richard*, and harry and want to change the distribution of that tax tom may pay $8, *richard* $10, and harry $12 if we intend the changes to be revenue neutral and thus remain $30 in total.
By introducing a carbon tax in the proposed manner we are redistributing the tax take in much the same way so as to discourage, but not neutralise, the emmision of carbon. By putting a price on carbon the net carbon emmision will theoretically decrease but unless the tax is so massive as to make all carbon emitting industires uneconomical there will still be carbon emissions. If we want an approach that will actually work we will need to neutralise those emmisions. That neutralisation nesacarily involves purchasing sequestration from an external body. That purchase costs money. So if we are aiming to still take in $30, to stay revenue neutral, in tax and we want out approach to actually acheive the stated end then some of that $30 will need to be paid to account for the positive net emmision of carbon. Say $1. That leaves $29 for the state to spend on others things such as welfare. But the previous spending was $30. If the tax is revenue neutral then we eiather do nothing and continue to spend the whole $30 where we were spending it or we decrease our spending in those areas and actually acheive something. Alternativly, we could make the tax non-neutral, or substitute it with a trading system, and acheive both goals but potentially decrease economic activity. At least a trading system has the benefit of increasing monetry circulation and thus taxable exchange.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The thing is that if they keep the tax take the same then they must eaither continue the present consumption of that tax and not pay for carbon offsetting or they must pay for carbon offsetting and massively cut the tax expendature.

Sapient… *I* cannot make sense of this sentence. Did you mean “present emission of carbon” when you said present consumption of that tax? Why would we pay for carbon offsetting if we reduce carbon emissions?

Please return to this… put the keyboard in low gear and try re-reading whatever you write next after having a cup of tea. Then post it. I recommend against coffee… we’d probably get only the first and 3rd letters of every word

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Didn’t say the bankers weren’t getting their sticky fingers in… BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCIENCE!!!!

Which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

Here’s the real conspiracy:

http://tinyurl.com/lde3qu

Despite this guy’s rhetorical bent, I extract 4 points to ponder. Libertarians are being distracted by the “environmentalist conspiracy”, possibly misled on purpose.

The BIS is completely above the law.

…. the newly created Financial Stability Board, operating as an arm of the Bank for International Settlements, …structures and dictates the rules and regulations to be carried out by the central banks of the world.
_____________________
….given the fact that central banks essentially operate independently of their national congresses or parliaments, the FSB now controls the monetary policy of the planet.

I just thought this might warrant a mention.

Because it ties in with the point that they are going to get their pound-of-flesh no matter HOW we structure a price on the commons. They own us people, we are chattel to be traded and discarded.

…but we STILL have to put a price on the commons.

Once again, read “Earth” by David Brin – Science Fiction, but of the really good variety.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Valis,
Its not the pricing so much that is the big thing.
The pricing is important as it should reduce consumption (though if the price is low it is actually likely to increase due to customer ethics/guilt nullification)but ultimately putting a price on the commons is merely one way in which we may decrease out net emmisions but it will never be sufficent to do what we need to do. That is one of the major major flaws in the carbon tax proposal.

The Green party states its perfered option as a revenue neutral carbon tax. The ‘revenue neutral’ side being defined by the amount of tax take rather than expendature on the nation.
They propose shifting the tax burden. The thing is that if they keep the tax take the same then they must eaither continue the present consumption of that tax and not pay for carbon offsetting or they must pay for carbon offsetting and massively cut the tax expendature. You cant split one dollar in to two unless you are china or america.
So, in the first option all is fair but no real change is made as the actual effect of a price is minimal and the important part is the sequestration while in the second option the required changes are made but all the beneficiaries are homeless.
The third option is of course to increase the total tax take or to impliment a trading system and acheive both goals whilst slowing the economy and screwing over the poor. The greens would then probally propose increasing the tax take to help the poor and in doing so slow the economy further and further hurt the poor. lol.

Just something thats been bugging me for awhile: the greens proposal for a revenue neutral carbon tax just doesint stack up logistically.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You could probably do something based around emissions taxes.

Having said that, I do see some problems with emissions taxes applied on an international level, in terms of the bureaucracy that would be required, and how you would include low-income countries, which for fairness would pronbably need a lower tax rate for domestic consumption, but the world price for production for export.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

That sucks. If anyone knows of an effective non-market way to price the commons, please let the world know.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Someone earlier on said the “sceptics” are an industry. Try this for an industry.

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

Dear Green Chip Review Reader,

The case for COP-15′s profit potential continues to mount.

In recent weeks we’ve heard that a “war chest” should be set up to handle the large amounts of capital that will move in its wake.

And we’ve heard a top tier investment bank call it the “Copenhagen Stimulus,” as they salivate over the billions that will be made from its policies.

I guess it was only a matter of time until COP-15′s coming impact was realized by the Street.

Now, with the meeting less than 3 months away, even JPMorgan is jumping on the bandwagon. This week they paid $202 million — a 120% premium — to buy a company that will have access to the profitable markets COP-15 will incite.

You need to be preparing for these profits as well.

One high level attendee recently put it very bluntly: “We are negotiating a deal on the economic structure of the planet.”

Reading our breakthrough report on the topic is the only way to put your portfolio in a position to profit from the sweeping changes about to come.

Call it like you see it,

Nick

http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/16141

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Yup.. denial is an industry, and the profits for Wishart who wrote cr@p are large while “Poles Apart” , a far better book, languishes.

The public appetite for denial is seen to be large. I had to special order “Poles Apart” – Wishart’s drivel was available off-the-shelf in the bookstore. I didn’t buy it because my money would be enriching him for lying comprehensively.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

It is very ironical that the trolls seem to target the most environmental of issues, yet on August 24 Frog posted a blog titled that directly challenged their heroes. It was titled “Govt has big Biz Round Table on Speed dial for advice.”

Unfortunately it only had 3 hits and I was one of the contributers.
I think that there is a pattern emerging here that there is a deliberate, orchestrated strategy to discredit the Green Party.

Fortunately for us greenies they are attacking the Greens in the strongest position.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Owen:

“Storms” and “Droughts” are not items on the list. Instead they are topics, under “Scientific Topics” – “Extreme events”. There are no list items under these topics as Coby doesn’t have any denialist claims that fall under these topics to refute.

The other two examples you raise are list items. If you follow the links, you will see the claim and the rebuttal. Feel free to post a reply here if you challenge the rebuttal, preferably with a link to some scientific evidence.

You could also challenge AGW through raising an issue that is not covered on the list, again by posting a reply here with links to supporting evidence. We could then try to identify a list item which covers your issue, or if you do find something new, we could try to write our own rebuttal. Your new issue may be covered by one of the list topics or it could be on a new topic.

Contrary to some beliefs, we would love to find proof that AGW isn’t happening. Unfortunately to date, no such proof has been offered that stands up to reasonable scrutiny.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

there are a few headings which have no questions under them

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

How does one challenge, or agree with the following items on the list?

Storms
Droughts.

Moana Loa is a volcano.

Climate is always changing

The list is meaningless as a framework for debate.
Just about all these items are used as heading for alarmist claims. It’s what you make of them that counts.

Like or Dislike: 0  1 (-1)

If Trevor’s suggestion is to be followed we’ll have to have a few things implemented here. It’s not a bad idea, but we need to coordinate.

I would not necessarily just answer a question, but would instead ask Frog for a new thread… or if I am absent, Frog would just create it. Requires us to exercise some judgment as to how long the answer is likely to get.

THIS post would be a permanent link/post on the front page of the site, and any answer threads we create wind up linked through this post, rather than through in the mainstream of the site. While they are active they stay in the mainstream.

Maybe we don’t need to shift them until they’re essentially complete and then we just lift them out of this stream and create them as separate threads?

We do need to think about the logistics though.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Perhaps the opposite is better – leave this thread for new questions and the other comments and start a new, heavily moderated thread to discuss each specific point as it is challenged or if new information is found. Then add a link to that thread beside the appropriate list entry or entries and the relevant starting question on this thread.

The moderation of the specific issue threads is only to keep the thread on topic, not to prevent challenges to the point of view.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Actually, can’t answer there. The comments on those threads have been closed for yonks. So I WILL wind up answering here apparently. If necessary.

We might have to have this be a more heavily moderated thread in that case. Only questions addressed to the arguments presented in the list and answers to them. Leave off the political diatribes and angry retorts. ?

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Ahhh… These are all links to Coby’s own site and I just had a look and at least one I recalled as dated has been updated since. Coby Beck apparently has been back through that site recently. I may set up to answer questions there as well in that case. – BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog

This list is a good idea, but it has a significant problem. The comments are going to get VERY long and an awful lot of the legitimate question-answer is going to wind up buried in the history.

Realistically each topic covered actually needs to have its own question-answer thread somehow, so that these can be accessible to the curious.. and no I don’t know how you would do that in this environment. Possibly a filter by number/argument arrangement. I don’t mind defending Coby’s work… his layout of the arguments is superb. I just foresee a problem with the depth of the comments thread. We’ve already gone through a fair amount of comment without even reaching an issue of substance.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)