Comments NoImpactMan has made

  • What about int'l tech transfer and carbon trading?

    What I don't get about cap and dividend or even Jim Barett's idea is that they both ignore the international picture.

    If the developing economies are going to accept caps on their greenhouse gas emissions it is likely to be a on an equitable per capita emissions basis across the globe.

    That means that the US is going to have to pay for substantial carbon credits from developing countries. Further, since the choice is between cheap coal or expensive renewables, we are going to have to find a way to subsidize renewable energy in developing economies.

    How are we supposed to pay for both these things and either reduce payroll tax or send out cap and dividend checks?On Peter Barnes' carbon policy proposal would not spur the economic changes we need posted 1 year, 5 months ago 19 Responses

  • Thanks Hal

    Very thought provoking. Can you email me please?

    All the best,

    Colin aka No Impact ManOn A 'sense of the House' resolution to adopt 350 ppm as America's official climate target posted 1 year, 5 months ago 13 Responses

  • The meaning of #3

    Hapa,
    At the moment, the international community is negotiating a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, the climate change treaty that much of the world--but not the USA--has signed on to. The negotiations take place under the auspices of the UNFCCC.

    I would like the US to lead the UNFCCC negotiations towards a successor to the Kyoto Protocol that embraces 350. James Hansen has said that we must start making substantial progress in this arena within ten years.

    That is what #3 aims at, though I admit it is not so clear. That's why I'm taking friendly amendments and comments!

    All the best,

    Colin Beavan aka No Impact ManOn A 'sense of the House' resolution to adopt 350 ppm as America's official climate target posted 1 year, 5 months ago 13 Responses

  • The time has come for citizen activism

    I know this may seem hokey, but I've written a piece of legislation for the House of Representatives calling for a goal of 350 PPM atmospheric carbon dioxide and US leadership towards this goal in the UNFCCC negotiations.

    This follows, of course, Hansen's findings and Bill McKibben and his 350 campaign.

    Why wait for the legislators to figure it out? Why wait until the election to start building a head of steam?

    You can read my House resolution here. I'm asking my Congressman to move it forward. I'm looking for other people to take it to their Representatives, too.

    I'm also looking for someone to lobby for a concurrent piece of legislation in the Senate. Who wants to be in charge of that?

    This may be the dumbest idea ever but it's time for the citizens to take charge.

    All the best,

    Colin aka No Impact ManOn Climate Security Act dies, failing to muster enough votes to move forward posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses

  • "American Chemical Society" ?!?!?

    I can't help being suspicious considering that the publisher is the American Chemical Society. Do you think think they may--as manufacturers of fertilizers--just have a slightly vested interested in undermining the local food idea?

    Not only that, I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons but I'm still not sure about the stay away from cows thing.

    What about if the cows provide the fertilizer? In other words, what about biodynamic farming where the cows graze on grass, the farmer harvests the manure and uses it to fertilize the vegetables. What is the relative harm of cows versus synthetic fertilizers?

    Come to think: the American Chemical Society might enjoy getting rid of the natural fertilizer available from cows, too.

    All the best,

    Colin Beavan aka No Impact ManOn Still more reasons to eat local and lay off the beef posted 1 year, 5 months ago 33 Responses

  • You're on the right track, Sean

    This is why I recently asked my Congressman, Jerrold Nadler, to introduce a "sense of the house" resolution putting on record that the goal of all US climate policy should be to achieve 350 PPM carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (or to adjust as science changes).

    What we need is a compass point that all policy should point to. In fact, better than 350 PPM might even be 1.5 degrees C.

    The point here is that our scientific understanding changes and the closer policy can stick to the most basic science, the better the chance that it can be on target.

    The problem is the structure of the science becomes shakier the more derivative it becomes.

    So first you do an analysis that says 1.5 to 2 degrees C temperature rise is the most we can withstand (due to the complexity there are already errors). Then you do an analysis, based on that, saying that 550 then 450 then 350 is the PPM of carbon dioxide we can withstand (an analysis which compounds the previous errors and introduces errors of its own). Then you do an analysis that says 80% by 2050, and that multiplies the errors again.

    This is why I asked Nadler to introduce a resolution that aims the USA at a target that is as close to the root science as possible. A compass point to which all future policy points.

    Just as fundamentally, we need science at the root of policy which has the least number of variables to argue about. And we need flexibility of policy, as you say, to change as new science comes in.

    So here's my call: a simple concurrent bill in the House and Senate that says simply that we the people of the United States agree that we should aim for 350 PPM atmospheric carbon dioxide, understanding that the science may adjust that number, but that in the meantime all other policy should aim towards it.

    Of course, I'm just a schlub, not a climate scientist or a policy wonk. But at the same time, it seems to me that we need a way forward that makes sense to schlubs.

    All the best,

    Colin Beavan aka No Impact ManOn The challenges of reconciling science and policy posted 1 year, 5 months ago 32 Responses