On whether to advocate weaker climate change bills 10

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   hayden Posted 11:30 am
   22 Sep 2007

   targetsStates can set all the fucking targets they want -- they will never meet them. European nations have not met the targets they promised under the Kyoto Protocol. Why do you think the states will meet their targets? It's all just big bullshit. The quality of our lives depends on fossil fuel emissions, and there's no fucking way we will ever -- EVER -- reduce our standard of living. Who the fuck do you think you are? Not one of your mothers has reduced your standard of living, besides maybe screwing in an CFL instead of an incandescent. Big fucking deal. We will never -- NEVER -- agree to CO2 cutbacks. Those advocating it, like Romm, are idiots.
   
   

   Permalink

2. 

   David Roberts Posted 11:47 am
   22 Sep 2007

   Hayden,Tone it down or you're out of here.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

3. 

   Pangolin Posted 1:43 pm
   22 Sep 2007

   Waiting for the Die-Off.The cold fact is that our society is based upon the trade of material excess as a means of accumulating status. People are able to accept painful realities if the culture at large supports the effort; look how many people adjust to commutes of over an hour each way. The majority will not yet accept a sacrifice in order to prevent climate change.
   Our means of communicating what is culturally important, television, is controlled by profit-seeking corporations. Only when it is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that climate change will make their profit schemes moot will we change the message from "buy useless stuff" to "reduce your emissions or die."
   Somebody, actually several million some-bodies, are going to have to die first.
   Well the monied elite don't get it even after a year in which a tornado flattened a town and another flooded the New York city subway system. We're waiting until "The Day After Tomorrow" comes knocking on the White House door personally.
   Currently our system of dealing with the crisis as a culture is somewhat akin to visiting the health insurance salesman when we think we might have heart disease. We need first to see the doctor......then it's time to drink the bitter medicine of change.
   We can be prepared with knowledge of what we are going to do and in what order. Install Solar thermal AND PV AND geothermal AND wind AND electrify our transportation system AND convert our ag lands to Terra Preta AND all out conservation efforts. Maybe, if we do all of that at the same time, it will be enough.
   All the nitpicking and backbiting about the merits and usefulness of this system of low carbon production vs. that system of conservation has a purpose. It's like polishing a great focusing mirror. If we can get some light on that mirror, get it out into the full sun, it's going to cut the steel we need to build a better world. Today we're still in the dark.
   
   Put the Carbon Back

   Permalink

4. 

   epadein Posted 2:52 pm
   22 Sep 2007

   Yes start carbon caps nowCongress needs to take a first step now. States can choose higher levels of commitment (like CA) and help to drive future adjustments. Tying the bill to periodic performance reviews (in terms of climate goals and incoming data) will help the cap levels evolve. The way I see it, if climate change is moving as quickly as it seems to be, it will only become more important to the general public. But waiting for the perfect congress could be like waiting for Godot.
   
   "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius

   Permalink

5. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 3:45 pm
   22 Sep 2007

   Thats the real questionPerhaps we should take the kid gloves off and go for the command-and-control approach.

   Permalink

6. 

   nedruod Posted 4:33 pm
   22 Sep 2007

   Get something done make it clear it's a compromiseI think the best route is to get something done, no matter what that is.  I don't know how far legislators can be pushed, hopefully someone has a good idea of that.  They should push for something safe and attainable this year, but keep the public word consistent with the message that it is a compromise so later support won't evaporate.
   That has two benefits, one is it keeps people's attention, and second it unifies people.  At least that's what I hope it would do.

   Permalink

7. 

   Billhook Posted 9:47 pm
   22 Sep 2007

   Taxation as a policy toolThat the author makes a series of pretty wild assumtions of the lack of efficacy of a "Cap, Allocate & Trade" system's operational structure,
   
   is of course his own choice.
   What puzzles me is his support of the widely held US-greens' faith in a carbon tax,
   
   as if there were any comparable taxation that has shown real efficacy in controlling a really serious "bad."
   In the UK, we have $9/gl petrol (about 70% tax) and consumption has been rising with the general economy.
   We also have >70,000 alcoholics, despite massive taxes on their drug,
   
   but their numbers are expanding and, most notably, the treasury has itself effectively become addicted to the alcohol revenues.
   
   These have traditionally paid for the majority of our armed forces.
   Given that we need to achieve swinging GHG output cuts to specific levels by specific dates,
   
   is there a track record of taxation's reliability as the appropriate policy tool ?
   Regards,
   Bill

   Permalink

8. 

   rclark51 Posted 11:49 pm
   22 Sep 2007

   Efficiency CarrotA significanr global carbon cap and excise tax could club us in the right direction in the melting decade we have to act. That combined with an efficiency tax credit might serve as an incentive to multiply our savings for innovative investments. A clean and renewable energy investment fund to provide zero interest financing might be yet another fruitful idea to add to our arsenal.
   
   R. Clark

   Permalink

9. 

   Billhook Posted 12:18 am
   23 Sep 2007

   "The right direction" is wrong outlook.Rdark51 -
   I notice that you don't provide a track record of taxation's relevant efficacy.
   That, as you say, taxation ".... might .... club us in the right direction ...."
   
   just doesn't cut it.
   Face it, if the UK and the US, as the past and present imperial powers,
   
   will not strive for swingeing GHG output cuts to specific levels by specific dates,
   
   why exactly should any other nation even attempt to do so ?
   Thus (while I'm sure you're unaware of it),
   
   the environment movement's devotion to general carbon taxes
   
   is actually the very best policy gift that the fossil status quo could hope for.
   Regards,
   Bill

   Permalink

10. 

    nedruod Posted 4:20 pm
    27 Sep 2007

    Taxes are not just about discouraging bad[Taxation as a policy tool] makes a common mistake.  CO2 taxes can just as much be about encouraging good, which makes them different than an alcohol tax.
    "Bad" is often a result of a personality flaw, addiction, or ignorance combined with fear, so it's much harder to stop then it is to create something good.  Gasoline taxes may not have stopped enough driving, but I'm sure they have something to do with the development of hybrids.  Net sum, you don't see gasoline consumption go down, but I'm sure it hasn't gone up as fast.
    There are studies that have shown cases where even the "bad" approach worked.  Big taxes on cigarettes lowered the number of adolescents and teenagers buying them here in Illinois.  Didn't do much about the adults.
    A CO2 tax is so pervasive a lot of good is sure to come of it.  At the very least, efficient companies will make money, while inefficient ones will lose money.  In time economic darwinism will defeat even the "bad" despite the irrational supports.

    Permalink