Elements of an effective response to global warming

Debate shifting post-IPCC report

Posted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 3:41 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Read more about: climate | climate change mitigation

With the release of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, the debate over climate change has noticeably shifted from arguments about the reality of human-induced climate change to a debate over how to address the problem.

For example, here on Gristmill an interesting debate has broken out over whether a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system is best to price carbon emissions (e.g., here or here or here). This is exactly the kind of thing we need to be debating, and I'm glad to see it.

Given that climate change is a serious risk, what prudent actions should we take to head off that risk? Below, I lay out the five elements of a successful strategy (summarized from a long discussion in chapter five of my book on climate change).

1. A long-range goal. An effective mitigation program needs a long-term goal to motivate action. For example, if we decide we want to limit global temperature increases to 2-3 degrees C, then (given mid-range estimates of climate sensitivity) we need to stabilize CO2 at 500-550 ppmv.

Given this long-term goal, we can determine the lowest cost emissions pathway to get to that stabilization level:

emissions scenarios
CO2 emission scenarios that would lead to stabilization of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 450, 550, 650, 750, and 1,000 ppmv. Source: adapted from Figure 6.1, 2001 IPCC synthesis report.

These emission scenarios all have a similar appearance, with emissions initially rising, then turning and declining sharply. The lower the CO2-stabilization target, the sooner this reversal occurs. Stabilizing at 550 ppmv, for example, requires emissions to peak at 11 GtC around 2035, then decline to 7 GtC by 2100 and 3-4 GtC by 2200. Stabilizing at 1,000 ppmv, on the other hand, allows emissions to grow until nearly 2100, with a slow decline over the following two centuries.

The scenarios in the figure are not the only way to reach a specified CO2 stabilization target. There are many paths to reach each target, including some that start cutting emissions immediately and others that make larger cuts starting later. But the shape of the scenarios, in which early emission growth is followed by sharp reductions later, makes the cost of attaining the concentration targets low. There are four reasons this shape tends to reduce costs: it avoids premature scrapping of long-lived capital equipment such as power stations; it allows more time to develop new low-emitting technologies; it allows time for the natural carbon cycle to help remove early emissions from the atmosphere by the time the concentration target becomes binding; and by delaying emission-reduction expenditures, it reduces their present value through discounting.

The lack of a long-term goal is one of the main failings of the Kyoto Protocol. The KP defined limits for emissions averaged over 2008-2012, and left completely undefined what the next step should be. This omission has become one of the major contributors to the present stalemate we are now experiencing in negotiations for the KP follow-on. A long-term goal gives stability and context to the overall planning environment that is missing from today's debate.

2. Short-term actions. A successful emissions reduction program must do two things: a) motivate private-sector actors to invest money to develop the technology that will be required, and b) motivate the private sector to adopt that technology.

Putting a price on greenhouse-gas emissions does both things. By putting a price on emissions, companies know that research into new technology to reduce emissions will pay off because a market for the technology will exist.

Pricing emissions could be done through either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system. The price could be low at first, but it must rise over time following a pre-announced schedule. And the private sector must be convinced that the politicians have the backbone to stick to this schedule.

3. A political strategy. This is the most difficult part of designing an effective policy. What countries make the first cuts? How then does the regime expand to include all countries? For both practical and philosophical reasons, countries like China and India are unlikely to agree to participate in the first stage of any GHG reduction regime. On the other hand, these countries must eventually be brought into the regime. And given the rate of growth of emissions from China and India, they must be brought in as soon as possible.

4. Adjusting policies over time. There must be a procedure for reassessing and adjusting efforts over time. Although emissions reductions must begin despite present uncertainty, the presence of uncertainty means that policies cannot be established once and for all. In particular, the form and stringency of policies, the mix of technologies being developed and adopted, and even the long-term goal for climate stabilization will all have to be repeatedly reassessed and potentially revised over the many decades it will take to stabilize the climate. A similar process has been used to great effect in the Montreal Protocol.

The most serious challenge for such a process will be balancing the need for policies to respond flexibly to new knowledge and capability with the need for a stable and credible policy trajectory to allow orderly investment and planning.

5. Adaptation. People, organizations, and communities will adapt to changing climate conditions on their own, but government policy can also aid adaptation in several ways. Governments might undertake specific adaptation measures by spending public money -- to build seawalls, for example. Or they might require adaptation measures by private citizens, such as changing zoning codes to restrict building in coastal areas, flood plains, or other vulnerable areas.

Of particular importance is the role of information -- climate predictions, impact studies, information about potential responses, or technical assistance -- in promoting adaptation. Such information can help people shift from reacting to climate change that has already occurred toward anticipating future changes.

Adapting to anticipated climate changes tends to be more effective and less costly, particularly for planning and investment decisions with time horizons of decades or longer. Improved climate analysis and projections can also reduce the risk of private actors mistaking short or medium-term climate variability for a longer-term trend.

Many potentially valuable adaptation measures will not be specific to climate, but rather will reduce the general vulnerability of people and society to many kinds of risks. For example, strengthening public-health infrastructure will help reduce health risks from climate change, but will also provide enhanced capacity to respond to other health threats. Strengthening emergency-response systems and implementing policies to promote development and poverty reduction would similarly help to reduce vulnerability both to climate change and to other threats.

For story: Elements of an effective response to global warming
29 Comments | Post a Comment

Post-scientization

"With the release of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, the debate over climate change has noticeably shifted from arguments about the reality of human-induced climate change to a debate over how to address the problem."

You mean that more definitive science advanced the debate?! You need to understand that science policy experts long ago determined that to be impossible. Continuing to claim otherwise is just more proof of bitterness. :)

(Great post. Thanks.)

by Steve Bloom at 2:57 PM on 22 Feb 2007

advancing the debate

Steve -

Given that all of the science in the Fourth Assessment Report is a couple of years old, it's not clear that it was "more definitive science" that advanced the debate. And given that the terms of the debate were shifting well in advance of the IPCC report's release, it's also not clear to me that it was "more definitive science" that advanced the debate. It's not clear to me what explains the shift, but the science on which it is based has been well understood for some time, and has changed little over the time period in which the debate has shifted.

by jfleck at 3:28 PM on 22 Feb 2007

demand-driven science

John and Steve-

I do think that improving science has had an effect, and the release of the IPCC's latest report along with the press coverage did indeed help push the canoe a bit closer to tipping.

But I also agree that science alone has not done it. Other events, like Katrina, polar bears, and Gore have played a huge role. I blogged about that here.

Thanks!

by Andrew Dessler at 3:40 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Grist devastated the carbon skeptics

by sunflower at 3:50 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Great post, Andrew. But.

I agree with everything here. My problem is, #3 basically amounts to a place-holder. [Insert political strategy here.]

I know you're not an expert in politics. Neither am I. Unfortunately, the folks who are experts at politics don't seem to care much about good climate change strategy. So it's left to us greens to try to hash out the politics.

It seems the greenosphere is forever producing these "Perfect Policy" manifestos (yes, I'm guilty), while less attention is paid to practical political tactics to make things start happening. For instance, it may be that we need a carbon tax and cellulosic ethanol research. In a Perfect Policy document, they'd each get a line item. But in terms of political tactics, it's clear that ethanol already has tons of political momentum and many wealthy backers, whereas a carbon tax is going to be a tougher sell. So we should focus on the carbon tax, not because it's necessarily better, but just because it needs our support.

Again, this isn't to say we shouldn't think about ideal policy. I love doing it. But one gets the sense that, oh, conservatives for instance don't just dream about a flat tax. They spend a lot of time thinking about what concrete, incremental, local and state-level initiatives and laws they can get passed in the current political climate -- things that move us toward a flat tax. They're always pushing and scheming. I feel like we don't scheme enough. Where are the green schemers?

Sorry this comment is incoherent -- I'm hurrying to do something else.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 4:21 PM on 22 Feb 2007

That's it

What I saw happen is the media declared the IPCC report definitive when it was released, and the report said that the warming we're seeing is caused by human activities. It was like suddenly everyone knew and accepted that climate change is real despite the fact that they knew it was real before then. Okay, it's real, now we have to figure out what to do is kind of the feeling I'm getting from "average" people I hear talking about it. The report, and the general acceptance of its findings, has made it much more difficult to ignore climate change or try to stay in denial of it. Now we have to help people take the next steps. First to show that, indeed, the report is very conservative and things will probably be worse and happen sooner, and then to implement plans and strategies at all levels. We need to use the report and move beyond it to get where we need to go. And, of course, sunflower is also right :)

by SMLowry at 4:28 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Political strategy

Dave-

In the book, we do lay out the various options for how to structure an agreement: 1) universal participation (e.g., Kyoto/UNFCCC), 2) bilateral agreements (e.g., U.S. and China), 3) a "coalition of the willing" (e.g., Europe + Japan + a few others). In our opinion, option 3 was the best.

It was late and the post was getting too long so I just left that discussion out. Perhaps that would make for a good post ...

Thanks!

by Andrew Dessler at 5:24 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Reduce fossil fuel taxes

Reduce fossil fuel taxes. Tax them no more than salt is taxed, or the services of an ad agency are taxed.

Greens are part of the market too, and for a lot of them, that means advocating pie-in-the-sky exactly because it is pie-in-the-sky; while doing so, they continue to cash their petrodollar-fattened government cheques. Were they to advocate fossil fuel replacements with a promise or history of effectiveness, fossil fuels would more quickly be replaced, and that component of their income would diminish.

If their civil service career prospects are contingent on the good regard of other civil servants, their advocacy of that few-percent income reduction for all publically funded persons would almost certainly translate into a 100-percent reduction of their cut.

Reduce fossil fuel taxes. There are subsidies, but they are tiny in comparison, and if you reduce the taxes, civil servants will no longer want to give the subsidies; they are given only because they come back tenfold.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes

by GRLCowan at 6:11 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Politics

>I agree with everything here. My problem is, #3 basically amounts to a place-holder. [Insert political strategy here.]

>I know you're not an expert in politics. Neither am I. Unfortunately, the folks who are experts at politics don't seem to care much about good climate change strategy. So it's left to us greens to try to hash out the politics.

You've been hinting around for weeks that you have something in mind, David. So isn't it about time you posted it?

by Gar Lipow at 6:30 PM on 22 Feb 2007

GRLCowan,

Huh? I am very confused about the meaning of your post. Can you elaborate?

by atreyger at 8:07 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Gar,

I'm afraid I've got nothing up my sleeve in that dept., though a few other posts have been brewing for a while. Political tactics can be a bear, since everyone has an opinion about them and very few people are in a position to test the ideas. Part of me thinks we all should just join Komanoff and lobby for a carbon tax. I'm not certain it's the right thing, but at least it's something concrete and simple. The green community rarely speaks with one voice, whereas the VRWC seems, at least from my POV, eerily coordinated.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 8:49 PM on 22 Feb 2007

#3

A carbon tax with a slow ramp up would be like sludge for market incentives, and take years, but it would focus the political mind.

I know next to nothing about politics and religion, something like frontal lobe and temporal lobes. Watching the politics of carbon mitigation will be interesting. Good luck and God's speed.

by sunflower at 8:54 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Conflicts-of-interest caused by sin-taxation

Atreyger,
.

I believe that Graham Cowan is meaning to imply here that sin-taxation creates public-servant conflicts-of-interest that ultimately lead to counterintuitive outcomes. For example, a special tax on widgets (passed because a certain committee has found that widgets are sinful) makes public servants back policies that encourage widget-use.

The counterintuitive aspect of this thesis arises from the fact that people typically perceive a specific tax as something that should result in reduced specific consumption, since it makes a certain specific something cost more for consumers. A way that conflicted public-servants might then actually encourage widget use would be to back policies that pathologically-regulate otherwise economically-feasible competitors to widgets. Another way that conflicted public servants might actually encourage widget use would be to back policies that encourage development of economically infeasible competitors to widgets.

Here is a real-world example: in a given society, coal-fired electricity becomes heavily taxed. The end result, many years after the heavy taxes are passed, is that more coal than ever is being burned to make electricity. What happened? The public servants who benefited from coal taxation hampered the nuclear renaissance (nuclear being a feasible competitor against coal and therefore the enemy) by backing pathological regulation of nuclear power, and encouraged wind-power and energy-conservation (these being being infeasible competitors against coal and therefore friends) by backing subsidy programs designed to encourage them.

by Nucbuddy at 8:58 PM on 22 Feb 2007
[ Parent ]

Regulation Is A Business Strategy

Remember that, before you advocate a tax or regulatory solution to a problem, any problem. The way the US congress works, regulations are written by the largest firms to be regulated, to uniquely favor their interest and penalize their competitors.

Why not instead re-criminalize pollution as a trespass? Then at least you could sue in court for damages. The Coasean system we have now gives companies a pass for pollution as long as it is below some arbitrary standard, set by the largest firms at a level that allows them to pollute as usual, and that shuts out competing firms.

If companies were held accountable for ALL their pollution, I am convinced the mix of power and transportation modes would be RADICALLY different.

Vince Daliessio www.libertyguys.org

by libertyvini at 9:11 PM on 22 Feb 2007

It's complex, but...

John, of course you're correct that there's nothing really new in the AR4 except (and this is important) the confidence levels, and in fact as has been pointed out often enough it was behind the scientific curve before the ink even hit the paper. The point I was making is that it is an example of more scientific information (albeit from prior research) advancing the debate as opposed to just being a distraction from the needed policy debate. Of course it's difficult to deconvolute the effects of Katrina, AIT, the AR4, the power shift in D.C., and the recent hot and cold spells, but in that regard I thought the timing of this surge was interesting. A related question is whether Katrina would have been so pegged to global warming in the public consciousness were it not for the serendipitous publication of the Emanuel and Webster et al papers.

But there's another factor I've been wondering about that you may be able to address: It seems to me that the last year (probably actually starting with Katrina) has seen a considerable shift in press coverage of climate change, both in terms of content (fewer token denialists) and volume of stories. Anything to that?

by Steve Bloom at 9:12 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Coal tax

Doesn't sound like a real world example. At least coal is not heavily taxed in the U.S. : if it was coal powered electricity would not be the cheapest electricity you can buy. Maybe you are thinking of some other country.

Nonetheless, even if it does not apply to coal I can think of some real world examples. Green taxes and sin taxes, if directed to fund programs ultimately do develop a constituency (both inside and outside of government) that prefers the revenues to reducing the behaviors the tax is supposed to discourage. California, where extensive use of hybrids has started to lower gas taxes compared to projections, is considering switching to a per mile tax to keep revenues up. In Washington State, I remember lobbying for more logging because logging revenues help fund schools here.

The answer is I think one of the alternatives the carbon tax foundations supports: directing revenues from a carbon tax as a direct check made out to every citizen, rather than going to fund any particular program - the way revenues from the Alaska pipeline are directed directly to Alaska citizens. I come to that conclusion reluctantly, because revenue from use of a finite sink is essentially a drawing down on capital - and in a platonic world would be directed towards replacement capital. But I think the unintended consequences of using carbon charges as a tax revenue source, and especially the political constituencies that would spring up around keeping those revenues up argue for direct disbursal of that money. Not to mention that redirecting that money directly back to the consumers who ultimately pay it mitigates the regressiveness of the tax in way that is more immediately visible than expenditures on any program, no matter how worthy.

by Gar Lipow at 9:32 PM on 22 Feb 2007

David Roberts on Politics

David I'm thinking of this:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/5/171439/6663

The facts are out about global warming. But most people aren't engaged, not really. That leaves two options:

1. Find some way of engaging people with a problem that's long, slow, invisible, intangible, and immune to near-term solutions.
2. Find some way of getting good policies in place without a groundswell of popular support.

Most people reflexively assume we have to do the first. I'm beginning to incline to the second. Much more on that in a later post.

I'm skeptical but intrigued. You are too smart to simply want to adapt the Amory Lovins approach of trying to convince business people and political leaders; that has failed for decades. So hopefully, you will explain what you have in mind with this.

by Gar Lipow at 9:43 PM on 22 Feb 2007

I see

Thanks for the explanation, Nucbuddy, and even though I didn't like your example (it seemed biased, no?), I can appreciate the idea of a revenue source from a 'sin tax'. That becomes an interesting question then, what if the public servants aren't misguided? For example, New York City's cigarette tax is the largest in the country, maybe even the world; people pay up to $8-9 for a pack. In the same time, smoking was banned from indoor areas: maybe the public servants do not view it as a revenue, because then they would actually promote smoking indoors. Further, people may not quit smoking, but they do smoke less, consuming less of the product.

But this is an even more important point: a small sin tax for a widget allows more consumers to purchase widgets, so that there is a total of more widgets sold and produced. Supposing that the sin tax on widgets becomes at least somewhat prohibitive on the purchasing power of the consumers, the increase in the tax for widgets equates with less widgets sold (# widgets smalltax x tax /widget SHOULD= # widgets largetax x tax /widget) Mathematical laws bear that it's impossible to increase both sides of the equation. The tax base does not change, but less widgets are sold, achieving the initial goal. Also, of course the model changes with NO tax (or tax = 0), but since everything is taxed in some way, there will never be a situation in which the transaction of widgets between producers and consumers is untaxed.

That is, of course, unless widgets are so addictive or such an absolute necessity, that other sectors of the economy suffer due to people spending more money on buying widgets(that's where the SHOULD comes in). As I recall, someone of great importance has said that USA is addicted to fossil fuels. I guess the question becomes, how addicted? And another, how necessary? We are very locked into the fossil fuel economy in terms of infrastructure and autos.

by atreyger at 10:04 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Nuclear gasoline vs that from the ground

Atreyger wrote:

We are very locked into the fossil fuel economy in terms of infrastructure and autos.

Maybe not. Petroleum can be manufactured synthetically with the help of nuclear power. If the carbon feedstock is taken directly from the atmosphere, nuclear gasoline becomes carbon neutral.

by Nucbuddy at 10:25 PM on 22 Feb 2007

So many broken promises

Yeah, I remember now, Gar. I should stop promising things.

The short answer is you do it by influencing power centers. You horse trade, you get key legislators -- usually those with something to gain -- on your side, you spin the D.C. press, you learn to pitch public policies wherein the benefits are visible (to at least one powerful constituency) and the costs are hidden, you get a few powerful business interests on your side with sweetheart deals. It's domestic realpolitik. Bush partisans know all too well that you don't have to have a groundswell of popular support to get fairly radical policy passed.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 10:29 PM on 22 Feb 2007

Wrong Direction

As usual I will say YOU have your climate science totally incorrect.

To reduce greenhouse gases at this stage of Global Climate Change will lead to total disaster for this world. The petroleum oil in the marine micro-layer must be removed first.

Why ?, because removing the greenhouse gases will reduce the water holding capacity of the atmosphere, and the rate of land drying worldwide will accelerate, and thus accelerate the unfolding worldwide drought.

What that will bring is basically the end of civilisation.

You are playing with all our lives and LOL, you won't even talk about it. Shameful AD.

Luckily there is really little you can do, you have made your bed now y'all must sleep in it.

http://omegafour.com/forum/
if you really want to find out what is really happening and what we should be doing about this climate problem.

I expect the public will have to take matters into their own hands.

by Zarkov at 12:19 AM on 23 Feb 2007

2100 to 2200

Madness, your world has only a few years left of viable agriculture..... and you will do nothing except talk your time away.

Oh well, LIFE is in it's death throes already so I expect a rotting future is all one can expect.

No use even posting this post is there.

by Zarkov at 12:25 AM on 23 Feb 2007

realpolitik

>The short answer is you do it by influencing power centers. You horse trade, you get key legislators -- usually those with something to gain -- on your side, you spin the D.C. press, you learn to pitch public policies wherein the benefits are visible (to at least one powerful constituency) and the costs are hidden, you get a few powerful business interests on your side with sweetheart deals. It's domestic realpolitik. Bush partisans know all too well that you don't have to have a groundswell of popular support to get fairly radical policy passed.

Umm you need a fair amount of power to begin to do this. You horsetrade? You horsetrade what? You spin? A lot easier to do if you own half the media and terrify the other half. Getting a few businesses on your side - great if you can get them enthusiastically on your side, and not just holding your coat and providing moral support. Also if you have a few businesses on your side, and the other side has a lot of businesses on your side you still are not going to win without popular support.

My comment about this approach is the same a practical politician I knew made about Machiavelli. You can argue about what he really meant, and about how practical his advice was for the prince of an Italian city-state in his era. A peasant or a merchant who tried to follow the same advice, no matter how you interpret it would have ended up hanged, or impaled, or burnt or facing some other form of execution. Someone at the top of the power heap has options open to them someone who is not among the richest of the rich and most powerful of the powerful does not have.

I've nothing against intelligent use of realpolitik. But what you can do with realpolitik depends on how much power you have. Without popular support you don't have a lot to trade with.

Also in terms of spin, for example the clear benefits, and hidden costs thing: not as easy for you to pull as Bush. The main stream media is not afraid of you, unlike spinners on the right. If you neglect to mention a cost, I'm sure the main stream press will be glad to point it out. If they fail to note it at first, I'm sure the right wing spin machine will call it to their attention. You can't get away with the same stuff someone like, say, John McCain can.

by Gar Lipow at 9:34 AM on 23 Feb 2007

Nuclear/solar oil

If solar or nuclear power stations take carbon dioxide from air to make nuclear gasoline -- and oxygen, probably vented at the factory -- this isn't exactly synthetic manufacture of petroleum, of rock oil, but simply of oil.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes

by GRLCowan at 10:17 AM on 23 Feb 2007
[ Parent ]

Adaptation

While I applaud Andrew for mentioning adaptation as point #5, there is a glaring lack of discussion about it in subsequent posts -- and in the overall debate over our response to climate change. While mitigation in the form of carbon taxes or cap-and-trade obviously warrants serious discussion, so to does adaptation. To offer it no or just cursory consideration is, I believe, an entirely Western/developed world-centric stance.

Briefly, adaptation's place in the debate over our response needs to be elevated to the same level as mitigation for the following reasons. First, it seems that we are resigned to see potentially large impacts from climate change under even the most drastic emissions reductions scenarios. Therefore, adaptation is not only desirable but absolutely necessary. Second, to ask developing countries such as India to cut emissions (and likely energy use) while attempting to meet the Millennium Development Goals (and other poverty reduction programs) is unconscionable and impractical. Third, adaptation makes sense across a wide range of scenarios; that is, even if certain impacts of climate change never end up happening, adaptation measures still make sense and contribute to other societal goals such as sustainable development and vulnerability reduction. Finally, and we can debate about this, adaptation requires action and local and regional levels which may help bring home some of the impacts of climate change. In so doing, this may also help generate additional investments in fighting climate change -- namely, mitigation.

I implore you to response to this and get the debate over adaptation started. It is vital.

Phd Student, IGERT Urban Ecology Fellow, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University

by Thad Miller at 7:19 AM on 24 Feb 2007

Develpment and mitigation

Thad - asking developing nations to cut emissions does conflict with developing or improving the lives of their people if the rich nations pay for it.

Secondly - much adaptation can be done only in response to problems as they occur. Not all of them of course - improving public health systems, putting in better water systems (many poor people have no access to clean water), and improving efficiency in water use. But agriculture is going to have to adapt to warmer conditions. But you can only adapt to them as they occur. Ask any agricultural expert what right crop will be for BC Canada or Indonesia 20 years from now. They won't be able to tell you, because we don't know how hot or how dry t hose places will be. So mitigation has to be the focus of attention - because there is more we can do at the moment about mitigation that about adaptation. Again I'm saying we should put zero effort in adaptation. There are concrete things we can implement today, and a lot of research needed. But if you add up everything we can do to adapt in advance of the conditions we are adapting to it adds up to a lot less than the potential for mitigation. (Also a lot of adaptation is mitigation as well. One of the most important mitgations we can make is to turn agriculture from a net emitter of greenhouse gases to a net sequesteror. This will help build soil; better soil will help farms survive harsher climate conditions.

by Gar Lipow at 10:01 AM on 24 Feb 2007

Development and mitigation

First sentence should have read:

Thad - asking developing nations to cut emissions does NOT conflict with developing or improving the lives of their people if the rich nations pay for it.

by Gar Lipow at 10:03 AM on 24 Feb 2007

Thanks for interpreting for me, Nucbuddy ...

Your interpretation was correct, although I agree with Lipow that coal taxes haven't been a big factor, except perhaps at a state level for Montana and Wyoming and whatever other states produce a lot. But oil and natural gas tax revenues definitely are a big factor, and the kerfuffle over nuclear seemed to erupt in the 70s when it began pushing oil out of the electricity market.

"Meaning to imply"? I thought I wasn't just implying, I was absolutely saying, as plainly as I knew how.

Immediate disbursal is good.

Lead with it, lead with immediate per-head disbursal of equal shares of the large carbon tax revenues that already exist, and after it has been sold and is in effect, the idea of adjusting carbon tax rates higher, if they need to be higher, won't inspire the immediate and reasonable doubts it now does. And proponents of such tax increases won't have to worry about getting caught drooling.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes

by GRLCowan at 1:27 PM on 24 Feb 2007

Correct me if I'm wrong ---

but doesn't the chart at the top of the page presume that atmospheric CO2 levels remain a function of emissions --- that is, that we can reach those levels of CO2 without triggering positive feedback loops that take the atmospheric concentration out of our hands entirely?

In Fred Pearce's great new book "With Speed and Violence," he makes the point that the IPCC, rather than being "radical," is actually quite conservative because it does not model likely runaway feedback loops (ocean saturation leading to termination of ocean carbon sequestration and possibly frozen undersea methane releases, tundra melting leading to enormous above ground methane releases, etc. etc.)

The 5% Project

by JMG at 1:20 AM on 03 May 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.