Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » “These people are not in the same game as the West, they want to lift their standard of living, and they will not be assisting in carbon abatement.”

“These people are not in the same game as the West, they want to lift their standard of living, and they will not be assisting in carbon abatement.”

I don’t know why but it seems that old Labor war horses keep writing opinions that I tend to agree with The opinion piece by Gary Johns in today’s Australian is a good case in point, I have been saying loud and long that right or wrong that the science can not overcome the politics when it comes to climate change. I had to ask my correspondent JM many times if he thought that his “solution” could be made to happen and although he eventually claimed that it could, the fact that it took many attempts and that his admission was most grudging really suggests that his belief in the possibility of mitigation is at best window dressing and if he actually believes it in his heart of hearts I would be most surprised.
Anyway I commend the opinion piece that I quote below.

The further debate will have to debunk the old adage that delaying change will be more costly.

This adage is just plain wrong. New technologies will not be adopted unless they are cheaper than current technologies. The reason why politicians subsidise the most expensive low carbon options, like wind turbines and solar panels, is that people mistake low carbon for low cost abatement.

Also, these boutique non-solutions are not a huge budget cost (just a considerable waste of money).

Sure, there is a risk to the environment in waiting for the technology to catch up, but that won’t change the minds of several billion Chinese, Indians, Indonesians and South Americans.

These people are not in the same game as the West, they want to lift their standard of living, and they will not be assisting in carbon abatement.

If in future historians of public policy dig through the entrails of climate change they will find a fascinating combination of millenarianism, ego-driven scientists, business that preferred to use the environment as a sales device, a propensity by governments to allow NGOs to get too close to the policy process, a media that mistook stunts for debate, lying former politicians, and current politicians who wanted to ride the hero’s wave, retiring before their purported policies bore no fruit.

There is good science and there is good economics, they each need time to guide the way. The job of the politician in this debate is to buy time.

Gary Johns

As I have been saying here for some time when the politics demonstrate that the solution can not be made to happen the time has come to learn to live with what is coming, because to do otherwise is to waste effort and treasure in a noble but futile exercise in climate piety.

Cheers Comrades
😉

My bold in the Quote BTW
Advertisements

51 Comments

  1. JM says:

    Iain, just to avoid any further doubt, I believe mitigation is possible and in reality the only feasible solution.

    Adaption won’t fly. We can’t adapt fast enough to outrun change and the ecosystems we rely on certainly can’t.

    There is nothing “grudging” about my view at all.

    There is no other choice.

    Happy now?

  2. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    I believe mitigation is possible and in reality the only feasible solution.

    Really? Truly? Dinks?

    OK how you are going to even get “mitigation” up in the USA let alone China or India?
    Even Brother Number One is going cold on the Climate change mitigation bizzo, He is trying very hard to move the political agenda off that at present in this country. Now as i see it if someone who has been claiming that it is the most important issue of our time begins to fall silent on it what chance is there that others who have previously been less keen on the issue coming to the Warminista party?
    I am not trying to be too cheeky here but I would just love to know how you think it could be done.
    My son insisted that I make him popcorn when he came home from school , hang on I’ll see if any is left 😉

  3. JM says:

    Iain, I am far, far from silent on this issue.

    I have given you my opinion many times, defended it and explained it. What the USA or China or India do or say will not change my opinion.

    And you pulling this “I’m on the side of the big boys and they’re going to beat you up” argument won’t change my opinion.

    You may favor silence in the face of apathy or mendacity, I don’t. And your tactic of strategic cynicism to curry favor in your corner of the local boozer cuts no ice with me.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    having finally got you to be entirely unequivocal about what you think is possible as a response to “climate change” all I am asking you is to be more expansive about How you think it can be done.

    For the record it has been literally years since I last had a drink of any sort at my local boozer and if you fade now in the face of some rather mild disbelief how pray tell do you expect to get your cure up in a world that is very much more hostile to the idea than I am?

  5. JM says:

    First an ETS would be a good start, and compared to a carbon tax would be relatively easy to get going IMHO. (I’m sure I’ve said that several times before)

    ETS’s have been created before and they work. We’ve also shown before that we can change the technology base pretty quickly if there are price incentives.

  6. Iain Hall says:

    But it looks like the ETS bill will never get through the US senate JM and if Obama can’t do it then who do you think could?

  7. JM says:

    Iain, nothing gets through the US senate.

    But it’s not the point. We’re talking about an ETS in Australia, that needs to get up because if it doesn’t countries that do introduce carbon controls will start to punish our exports.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    I specifically asked you:

    OK how you are going to even get “mitigation” up in the USA let alone China or India?

    Now if you want to focus on Australia that is fine but to do so now is to concede that you really don’t believe that any of the countries I cite( above) are going to get on board with the “cure”that you think is possible.

  9. JM says:

    Iain, I just told you. This will evolve, some countries (like Europe) will do things, others (like the US) won’t.

    But those that do will penalize those that don’t.

    And that’s the minimum position, I think what will actually happen is something better – ie. an international agreement of some sort, however half-baked.

    But it’s still something. You’re trying the make the perfect the enemy of the good by arguing that unless the solution gets delivered in a way that is 100% satisfactory to you (and all wrapped up in a pretty pink bow), then we should do nothing.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    You just got through assuring me that Mitigation is possible and by that you have to mean mitigation that is extensive enough to actually affect the climate but it seems to me that you are back peddling here by talking about “This will evolve” You can’t rely on some sort of vague appeal to Saint Charlie Darwin.

    I know you are going to hate this but I think that for a man of science you are making an argument from faith here

    My argument has always been that no where near enough countries will get on board the Carbon Cuts band wagon in a timely enough manner for it to make any difference. You insist that they will so tell us how.

  11. JM says:

    Iain, those are two quite different discussions.

    One is whether adaption (another word for lets-do-nothing-see-what-happens-and-react-when-it-does) is worse than mitigation. Mitigation is clearly better.

    The second argument is whether pricing carbon is possible or will have any effect. Clearly pricing carbon is possible.

    The question in both cases is simply whether the measures can be effective. This boils down to whether or not markets work.

    Since they do, I think we can have confidence that pricing carbon will work. Also that mitigation will work. You see mitigation offers efficiency and productivity gains and people and businesses like those. They like lower costs and prices.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    In your very first comment here in this thread you said this :

    Iain, just to avoid any further doubt, I believe mitigation is possible and in reality the only feasible solution.

    All of your last comment is an attempt to shift the discussion away from you having to find a way to answer the natural question that follows your initial claim that I quote here; How is it going to be possible politically to achieve your mitigation?

    Now you are into hyper-drive-back-pedal mode!

  13. JM says:

    Hogwash Iain. My last comment simply repeats my first.

    Do markets work Iain?

  14. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    I have never been the sort of conservative who believes that “the Market” can solve every problem known to man, or that they are innately superior to any other type of social engineering measures.
    That said a ‘market solution” is not going to have even the slightest chance of working unless you can call it into existence . The essence of the source piece for this blog is that its author shares my view that your market solution can not be created here or elsewhere. You suggest that it can and I want to know how.

  15. JM says:

    You say a market can’t be created? Why not? Where did you get that idea from?

    The only way this particular market could not be created is via political failure. And all you’re saying is that because there is a possibility of political failure, then failure must be a certainty.

    Stop channelling Hanrahan.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    The Government of Brother Number One has failed twice to get his CPRS up and I am willing to bet that he won’t get it passed if he presents it to the parliament again. This is not just my opinion but that of many commentators even those of the “green” persuasion do not expect it to be passed.
    The public have cooled on the whole CPRS idea even Blind Freddy can see this is the case.
    Are you telling me that you seriously think otherwise?

  17. Len says:

    Sorry to say this guys, but the both of you are quoting wonderful free market economic theory here, but you forget one important thing in this whole debate ?

    This is not going to be anything even resembling a free market.

    It is going to be political warfare at it’s finest. You are going to have massive conglomerates bidding like crazy, over limited pieces of paper, all whilst the government (or any pollie worth his corrupt blood cells), waits in the wings, to collect the backhanders required, to get permits to their mates ? There is going to be enormous interference coming from all avenues, looking to become heroes in this whole debate ?

    Corporations have an extraordinary amount of pull in this country. A classic example of this, is the way that our car companies, have sway over the government, especially excise tax levels. You honestly think that the billions of dollars of infrastructure investment over the years, is going to be put at risk possibly by this and any other reincarnation of the ETS ? There are hundreds of thousands of workers, their jobs at risk just, in the motor industry alone. What about the mining industry ? Same thing. Overseas companies are not going to be interfered with, by any government in this way. If the government think they can sway this, by public opinion, they are dreaming.

    To your comments above ? We don’t need an ETS scheme people. We have all known, ever since the inception of the Industrialised Age, where the problem industries are, and what we need to do, to curb the problems out there. In other words, we know what the problems are, and what is required to fix them ? We have the technology, why aren’t we doing it ? Money, thats why. Its all about greed. Being environmentally friendly, is inversely proportional to bottom line figures to shareholders. Why is all this so difficult for the egg heads to fathom ?

  18. PKD says:

    The public have cooled on the whole CPRS idea even Blind Freddy can see this is the case.
    Are you telling me that you seriously think otherwise?

    I’m not sure the public has ever been overwhemingly hot on a CPRS Iain, but political nonsense about it being a massive tax, scare stories about the cost of it etc certainly haven’t helped it.

    You have Tony to thank for that amongst others…

  19. JM says:

    Len, I agree with you. The reason why it is hard to get this up is the money involved. Specifically the huge investment in coal generation, and transport based on fossil fuels.

    There are only three ways of dealing with that:-

    1./ Legislative mandate to stop using those technologies. Hugely disruptive, destructive and never going to go anywhere.

    2./ Carbon tax. Similar to 1, but slower and subject to pressure from special interests who’ll demand (and get) exemptions, delays, etc

    3./ An ETS. A cross-market solution that puts the same price on carbon no matter where it comes from. A market based solution. Establish it and let g-d sort ’em out.

    The last is politically achievable (although hard), will work (with flaws) but will definitely do the job.

  20. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Len is right is so far as he says that Money is the big incentiviser on this issue, PKD seems to think that I am right about The CPRS and even you are expressing a far from optimistic view about the possibility of that we will ever have an ETS any time soon.
    Now I don’t want to do the rooster thing and start crowing about being right but you have to start coming to the party and admit that no matter how righteous and true that you think an ETS may be if it isn’t going to happen for political reasons it won’t do anything about atmospheric Co2.

    The thing is CPRS is NOT politically achievable in this country because if someone with Rudd’s popularity and commitment can’t get it up then just who will ever be able to do so?
    And that brings me back to the real nexus of the issue “will the substantailly bigger players actuctally come to the party? You seem to suggest that they will so you have to either say HOW that will happen or admit that you have been indulging in wishful thinking on the matter.
    In my opinion Rudd’s biggest mistake was to over sell this issue as a crisis and to make too big a deal about the climate conference in Copenhagen. When that turned out to be a total waste of jet fuel he lost a great deal of credibility on the issue. I reckon that in electorate it is dead as a vote winner. and the proof of that is the fact that Rudd is trying so hard to change the discourse to the economy.

  21. JM says:

    Iain, don’t put words in my mouth. I do think that an ETS is going to happen, and I’m not “coming to the party” in any way.

  22. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    I do think that an ETS is going to happen, and I’m not “coming to the party” in any way.

    You keep saying this JM but when asked “HOW?” you try to side step the question.
    As “a man of science” how can you ignore the logic that says an ETS it is not going to happen so you have to find another solution?

  23. Iain Hall says:

    Yet another part of the IPCC report is shown to be exaggerated bunkum:
    from the Times

    This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.
    The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.

    This report is the IPCC’s most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers. Its lead authors include Pachauri himself.

    In it he wrote: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by Pachauri and Ban.

    This time the claims of “doom in Africa” is shown to be grossly exaggerated

  24. PKD says:

    You keep saying this JM but when asked “HOW?” you try to side step the question.
    As “a man of science” how can you ignore the logic that says an ETS it is not going to happen so you have to find another solution?

    Iain – I’d say theres a better chance of an ETS happening than Abbotts half baked (tax payers) cash giveaway…

  25. Iain Hall says:

    Really PKD?
    where pray tell is Brother Number One going to get the numbers in the senate to make it so?

  26. PKD says:

    I love the way you focus on Rudds need for the numbers, when obviously Abbott is far shorter in votes across both parliaments overall…where is Abbott going to get the votes from Iain, hmm?

  27. Iain Hall says:

    Abbott is not in government and he is not proposing an ETS PKD.
    Tony is doing what an opposition is supposed to do opposing the legislation that the government proposes that is against the national interest.
    Look face it the CPRS is dead, deceased,it is pushing up daisies, it has ceased to be, it has fucking snuffed it!

    But when it come so votes I saw Rudd on the Insiders (in a little snippet) pointing out the the difference between government and opposition is very small indeed two propel in a hundred changing their vote if I remember correctly…

  28. PKD says:

    So you admit Abbotts ‘policy’ is shorter in votes supporting it overall than Rudd’s.

    Great – thanks Iain!

  29. Iain Hall says:

    PKD

    So you admit Abbotts ‘policy’ is shorter in votes supporting it overall than Rudd’s.

    WTF?
    Abbots policy only comes into play after the next election when the people vote out Brother Number One’s government. So it will be the votes of the people rather than the parliament that decides the issue and unlike Rudd’s “Great big New Tax” the coalition odes not need to pass any complicated legislation to make their policy into a reality.

  30. JM says:

    Iain, it will happen simply in the same way as Europe got their ETS and the US got their Acid Rain Program. Politics.

    You’re argument is that you think your side will win the political argument, so my side should give up.

    “We’re gonna win, nhah, nhah” belongs in the playground or on the sporting field.

  31. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    “We’re gonna win, nhah, nhah” belongs in the playground or on the sporting field.

    That is the very last thing that is on my mind here . In fact this whole exchange is more like a game of poker and you are acting like a player who has had his hand called and then refuses to show his cards because instead of the Royal flush that he claims he has only got a pair of threes.

    In any case my whole argument here in this post has been about the politics, right from the beginning and you must have known that because that is what I have been saying all along. You can’t just throw up you hands and say:

    it will happen simply in the same way as Europe got their ETS and the US got their Acid Rain Program. Politics.

    and expect to be taken seriously in any discussion of the issue. i have on more than one occasion admitted that I could be wrong about the science so perhaps the time has come for you to admit that your “it will happen” stuff is just naive wishful thinking, rather than being any sort of considered judgement of the politics as you have repeatedly tried to imply.

  32. JM says:

    Iain you’re missing my point. You claim that I should recognize the “logic” that an ETS can never be implemented.

    How can it be “logical” that it will never be implemented when there are existing examples?

    ETS’s have been implemented and do work.

  33. PKD says:

    Indeed – you do realise there is an ETS running in Europe Iain?

  34. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    the European ETS has been very widely rorted, and the price of carbon credits that it trades is now bugger all and precisely how much carbon has been reduced as a result?
    The ETS may exist but it definitely is no poster child for the concept, If anything it is a good argument for doing nothing of the sort.
    In any case my argument is not that it is impossible to create any ETS scheme but that it is impossible to create one at a global level that will be extensive enough to actually do what its proponents claim that it will.
    You keep saying that I am wrong in this and i keep asking you to explain how you think it can be done.

  35. JM says:

    i keep asking you to explain how you think it can be done.

    No you haven’t, this is the first time you’ve specified global. Previously you’ve focussed on Australia.

    In any case, I’ve explained how it can be made global

    1. If two countries implement schemes that are different the credits can be arbitraged. This has been done before in the financial markets with (for example) currencies and bonds.

    2. If a third country doesn’t implement a scheme, its exports will be penalized by the first two, so it will pay the price anyway – and without gaining any of the efficiency benefits from adoption of modern technologies.

    Simple, really.

    (Oh, and you need to update your view of Europe’s scheme. It started out badly because they issued too many free credits, but it’s better now. This sort of thing is common in new markets, but they get fixed up over time. It happened with the very successful Acid Rain Program, it’s happening again with Europe’s ETS)

  36. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Now you are makeing yourself look silly!
    The specific question that I asked you in a previous thread and earlier in this one is this:

    OK how you are going to even get “mitigation” up in the USA let alone China or India?

    For you to now claim that

    No you haven’t, this is the first time you’ve specified global.

    is entirely disingenuous. I have consistently spoken of this issue as a global one and argued on that basis. for you to now pretend that I have focused my considerations just on Australa just beggars belief.

    It also undermines you claims to having a tertiary science qualification.

    Even if I accept at face value that the European scheme is now “working better” you conveniently neglect to mention any amount of GHG emissions that have been mitigated by its operation, probably because there have been none.

  37. JM says:

    Iain don’t quibble.

    You asked me how I thought it would go global. I’ve explained it (and I have explained it before).

    This paper is quite interesting as it discusses the various linkages and mechanisms that can (and are) being used to link disparate ETS’s..

    For example, Europe has established links with other systems.

    Also – interestingly enough – several US states are looking to establish their own schemes independently of the federal government (and are also looking at how to integrate them into the wider world).

    As to success, I think you’re being a bit demanding expecting instant results – the scheme has only been going for a few years and is still in the introductory phases.

    For success, I’d look to things like the Acid Rain Program which has been very successful. These things do work Iain.

  38. Iain Hall says:

    Jm
    you have done no such thing. when it comes to addressing the core question of how you make your cure happen at a global level, Now you offer vague wishful thinking and a paper that is all theory and speculation:

    In the near term, indirect linkages of cap-and-trade systems via a common emission-reduction-credit system could achieve meaningful cost savings and risk diversification without the need for much harmonization between systems. In the longer term, international negotiations could establish shared environmental and economic expectations that would serve as the basis for a broad set of direct links among cap-and-trade systems. This progression could promote near-term goals of participation and cost-effectiveness while helping to build the foundation for a more comprehensive future agreement.

    The number of times the words “could” and “would” appear in the conclusion sums up its weakness. The whole paper in economist gobbldy gook with no grounding in the real world at all.

    For success, I’d look to things like the Acid Rain Program which has been very successful. These things do work Iain.

    The difference is that Acid rain was amenable to addressed at source namely the burning of high sulphur content coal for power generation, with suitable retrofitting a a number of power stations to remove that for the smokestack emissions the problem was addressed. I don’t know where you get teh notion that a cap and trade system was involved at all.

  39. JM says:

    Iain, the reason why I referred you to that paper was to provide an indication of the number of countries considering this or actively moving forward on it.

    And also to address your concern about whether it could be made global

    And it’s not wishful thinking.

    You’ll no doubt have heard of foreign exchange? And that countries as diverse as the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand all issue currencies called “Dollars” that nonetheless have different values although they are nominally identical?

    How do you think $1US gets translated to $1AUD? How does someone work out a fair exchange rate? That’s right, the market does it.

    And so it is with carbon credits, an EU carbon credit traded or exchanged in another country (say a US state) won’t be traded one-for-one or even on a strict fx exchange rate basis. What will happen is that the value of that carbon credit will be compared to that of the other and it will trade at a discount or premium appropriately.


    The difference is that Acid rain was amenable to addressed at source …..

    Yes. And what do you think made them do that? Legislation? Bribes a la Monsiuer Abbot?

    No, a cap-n-trade system, refer Acid Rain Program:

    The Acid Rain Program is a market-based initiative taken by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to reduce overall atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which cause acid rain.[1] The program is an implementation of emissions trading that primarily targets coal-burning power plants, allowing them to buy and sell emission permits (called “allowances”) according to individual needs and costs.

    Read the rest of it. It’s a cap and trade system.

  40. Iain Hall says:

    Iain, the reason why I referred you to that paper was to provide an indication of the number of countries considering this or actively moving forward on it.

    The thing I JM the big 5, China India Russia Japan and the USA are never going to do it and if you can’t get them on board then any number of minor countries paying lip service to the liturgy won’t mean squat. And that is what all of your examples of ” considering this or actively moving forward on it” amount to.

    And also to address your concern about whether it could be made global
    And it’s not wishful thinking.

    But your citation does not prove that It can be made global. the paper you cite is predicated on the assumption of global cooperation but ignores the reality that every country have their own agendas and almost none of them have the commitment to AGW mitigation that would be necessary to make any cap and trade system ‘work” well enough to actually reduce Co2 emissions .
    I am still waiting foir you to tell me how much Co2 has been mitigated by the European system that you think is so praiseworthy

    I understand how money is traded JM and I reject your assertion that it is analogous to the trade in Carbon Credits

    And so it is with carbon credits, an EU carbon credit traded or exchanged in another country (say a US state) won’t be traded one-for-one or even on a strict fx exchange rate basis. What will happen is that the value of that carbon credit will be compared to that of the other and it will trade at a discount or premium appropriately.

    Once agin how many Tons of GHG emissions have been reduced by the European system?

    I would take a stab in the dark and say that it is none, nowt, Nada not one gram.
    You see when you are actually buying and selling something that is entirely abstract, something that can not be measured at source but has to be imagined or estimated. This is a recipe for rorting , a fast track for the spivs and shysters to make a motza.

    Yes. And what do you think made them do that? Legislation? Bribes a la Monsiuer Abbot?

    Tony Abbott is not a Frenchman JM

    No, a cap-n-trade system, refer Acid Rain Program:

    I concede that the acid rain abatement was via a cap and trade system but when you are dealing with less than 300 generator plants you can make such a thing work, Scale it up and it falls over because of sheer administrative complexity. and as the experience in Europe shows it just does not actually reduce any emissions

  41. JM says:

    Iain: The thing I JM the big 5, China India Russia Japan and the USA are never going to do it

    Let’s take the US. First a number of states are doing it regardless of the federal government.

    But, I don’t know if you noticed, last year the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA can – and should – make regulations on CO2 emissions as a pollutant.

    That means that if the US Congress can’t get its act together to come up with something that the EPA will be obliged to impose something. This year is crunch time.

    The US will do something, ok? There’s not really much doubt about it, that’s why an ETS is on Congress’s schedule and also why Obama was so embarrassed at Copenhagen – he knows he has to get something done.

    But your citation does not prove that It can be made global

    But I think my argument about financial instruments being global despite being issued and tradable only locally, does. Don’t you? Those “spivs” are pretty good at making money (mostly off each other), don’t you know.

    I would take a stab in the dark and say that it is none, nowt, Nada not one gram.

    Two points:-

    a.) too early, it’s only being introduced
    b.) other ETS’s have worked and do work. Why shouldn’t this one?

    I concede that the acid rain abatement was via a cap and trade system

    Ah. So you do concede that they work then?

  42. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Let’s take the US. First a number of states are doing it regardless of the federal government.

    But, I don’t know if you noticed, last year the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA can – and should – make regulations on CO2 emissions as a pollutant.

    That means that if the US Congress can’t get its act together to come up with something that the EPA will be obliged to impose something. This year is crunch time.

    If a US government tried to do it without the approval of Congress that government would in the first instance face a revolt of its people and in the second instance that government would be thrown out of office at the first possible opportunity. And that would make the Democrats unelectable for a generation. Obama is already looking shaky for a second term and I just can not see him doing it

    The US will do something, ok? There’s not really much doubt about it, that’s why an ETS is on Congress’s schedule and also why Obama was so embarrassed at Copenhagen – he knows he has to get something done.

    I think given the fiscal problems that the USA is in that Obama is more than happy to let the whole issue go he would rather let his efforts be “a Noble failure” than a bottomless money pit success.

    But I think my argument about financial instruments being global despite being issued and tradable only locally, does. Don’t you? Those “spivs” are pretty good at making money (mostly off each other), don’t you know.

    Sure the spivs are good at making money that is uncontested by me but the question is will it actually work to reduce emissions? The evidence of the European system is that it just won’t have any effect and after all isn’t reducing Co2 what you Warministas are all on about?
    And while an ETS may make money for those traders do we really want a hole class of fiscal parasites to be enriched in the process? remember that we the people will ultimately be paying for the whole ETS edifice either through higher prices or through higher taxes. which could be justifiable if two criteria are met, firstly that some real proof that the problem actually exists and secondly that emission reductions will actually do what you claim that they will.

    Two points:-

    a.) too early, it’s only being introduced
    b.) other ETS’s have worked and do work. Why shouldn’t this one?

    The European system has been running for a few years now and it does not even provide the price signal to make the “Green energy” viable. face it the whole thing is a colossal failure.and you think that the world will follow suite?

    I want some of what you are smoken matey because it must be good gear if you really believe this!!! 🙄

    I concede that the acid rain abatement was via a cap and trade system

    Ah. So you do concede that they work then?

    No I concede that it appears to have worked in the case of “acid rain” mitigation but I do not think that you can suggest that it will work to “stop the planet heating” because it just won’t change the amount of Co2 emitted.

  43. JM says:

    Iain you’re not listening. The EPA is already empowered by the Congress (and the Supreme Court) to do this.

    The only way it won’t happen is if the Congress actively stop it, or provide an alternative. I can’t see it myself.

    The European system has been running for a few years now and it does not even provide the price signal to make the “Green energy” viable.

    Well it didn’t start out well, but that’s been fixed over the last couple of years so the price signal is there now. And green energy is already viable, just not “lowest cost”. That will change.

    through higher prices

    Ummm, that’s the point isn’t it? Put a price on carbon which has been free up till now and the technologies whose viability relies on polluting the planet “for free” become more expensive. No s**t Sherlock!

    because it just won’t change the amount of Co2 emitted.

    Why not?

  44. PKD says:

    because it just won’t change the amount of Co2 emitted.

    Why not?

    Because Iain says so. Amen.

  45. Iain Hall says:

    Iain you’re not listening. The EPA is already empowered by the Congress (and the Supreme Court) to do this.

    Bollocks! the supreme court ruling was to define Co2 as a pollutant and it is on that basis that The EPA would be empowered to act but that ruling would obviously not give the EPA the power to create and administer an ETS. Now does it and that is what you are claiming they can do.

    The only way it won’t happen is if the Congress actively stop it, or provide an alternative. I can’t see it myself.

    Even if the EPA did have the power to do as you suggest the congress would have to vote to provide the money and I can’t see it happening.

    Well it didn’t start out well, but that’s been fixed over the last couple of years so the price signal is there now. And green energy is already viable, just not “lowest cost”. That will change.

    ‘climate change” has certainly lost its shine in the last few monthes JM what with all of the scandals and so forth. Simply put belief in AGW has peaked and now peopel are just going to buy into it.

    Ummm, that’s the point isn’t it? Put a price on carbon which has been free up till now and the technologies whose viability relies on polluting the planet “for free” become more expensive. No s**t Sherlock!

    But my point is that all you are going to do is create a price for climate piety in a minority of the countries of teh world and that will never be enough to achieve your prescription so its all pain for no gain

    because it just won’t change the amount of Co2 emitted.

    Why not?

    because you cant get enough of the worlds people to play by your rules

  46. Pkd says:

    because you cant get enough of the worlds people to play by your rules

    I love the way you desperately invent ways in which efforts to address AGW will fail, while never suggesting alternative ways it could be made to work. You meet the standard definition of a cynic quite well iain…

  47. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    I am a cynic because I have been following global politics for nearly forty years, which does not give me any cause to be otherwise.
    Further as someone who is sceptical in the first instance about the causal relationship between human activity and Global warming I don’t have to provide an alternative “cure” That is a task for you Warministas 😉

  48. Pkd says:

    And yet you still support Abbotts effort to spend billions of taxpayers money on trying to reduce CO2 emissions?

    We can add hypocrite to cynic then! 😉

  49. Iain Hall says:

    No PKD as I said in an earlier post even a sceptic can support the coalition because all of the measures proposed have benefits for the environment even if the Warministas are proven to be as wrong as we think they are.
    That is a win/win situation

  50. Pkd says:

    But it’s going to cost at least 2.5 Billion!!!

    The benefits to the environment will be negligable for your 2.5 billion.
    Is it really a win for us taxpayers (which I’m sure doesn’t bother you as much) to pay extra tax for this dodgy scheme?

    It’s unbelievable that you would support such a spend to fix a climat you think isn’t broken for next to no environment benefits…

  51. Iain Hall says:

    If nothing else PKD it is the lesser of the evils when you compare it to what Brother Number One is proposing.

    You might also benefit from reading this in the Guardian of all places PKD

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: