It could fit with a permit auctioning umbrella, where you have one year permits auctioned off, a smaller amount every year. I would suggest the phase down be done both faster and more gradually. That is instead of large cuts in ten year intervals small cuts every year that add up faster. Also I'd suggest that we start sooner than 2015. Yesterday would be good. But since that is not an option, why not 2010?

Your statement:

..such drastic action strikes most people as fantastical and is easily dismissed...

is very true.

Such a plan if proposed would be fought by every means available, it is pure fantasy, not based on clear thinking.

My only realiistic hope is that Peak Oil occurs sooner rather than later.

Short of Peak Oil -- in effect, a supply-side policy that will be imposed by Mother Nature, against whom there will be absolutely no option of appeal -- I don't see how the teeming masses of humans scrambling over the surface of our planet will somehow miraculously decide to voluntarily reduce their fossil fuel consumption.  

Call me a pessimist, but there is no evidence to date that the competitive, self-serving nature of the human race has ever responded proactively to issues of this magnitude.

It's gonna be painful, it's gonna be ugly when Peak Oil hits.  But it's gonna be less painful and less ugly for us if it hits sooner than later.  Then, at least, greenhouse gas emissions may actually be curtailed.

So pray that Peak Oil is upon us.  Or will be shortly.  Otherwise, we're toast.  Literally.

Social engineers love to tinker with the free market and impose draconian policies such as shutting out oil and gas, and cutting back on coal deliveries.  It is easy, convenient, clean, and smacks of a certain kind a fascist or Soviet "central planning" concept where everything is controlled from the top down.  It is far easier to pose a solution the simple way than to really figure out all those nagging details.

If there is a counter-argument, it is that the consumers really rule the market because if they didn't buy all that stuff they'd just diversify and lower production because they couldn't store the crap anywhere, and it would be worth much less if flooded on the market.  This is called DEMAND REDUCTION. and is the direct antithesis of supply reduction.

Reduction of demand starts with us greedy Americans who consume so much energy ... and that when explained and educated, rational folks will make a concerted life-style change to reduce consumption of electricity, gas, and whatnot.  True enough, most literate Americans now think that Global warming is a least worthy issue to discuss, pro or con, and of those a growing proportion of the populace thinks it is high time to reduce our consumption and diversify into stuff like wind energy.

The only problem with demand reduction as I see it is that if the US population never grew, conservation by itself could cut Global Warming gases by a significant and substantial amount - but we keep growing at like 2-3 percent and everyone wants a piece of the American Dream and the emissions keep growing.  Any growth could off-set any voluntary reductions.

Demand reduction will work.  It might take a few more minor wars, droughts, infestations, and horrible cyclones to prompt people to reduce their energy voluntarily, along with these infamous "brown-outs" and service disruptions, but I have the faith and don't need BIG DADDY telling me what to do (need I talk about riots in the streets?).  The good part is that many people are doing good things right here today to help reduce energy use in their homes and businesses.

The one thing that really pissed me off about President Bush ... well lately ... was that he said he would support a voluntary Global Warming program in view of the Supreme Court decision - but that if China went overboard on its emissions then all bets were off.

Can you imagine how stupid this sounded?  Us Americans consume more energy per capita than anywhere in the whole world, and we should be leading by example, not by following the EU and China (nevermind chasing its tail in Iraq).  

So some policy wonk comes along without a good understanding of these and a myriad of other details and says "heck, cut all production by five percent per year."  Folks, if there was a way to sound more stupid than President Bush, you won that raffle ticket.

Oh no, I am not done yet.  The "supply reduction" argument assumed that you can actually control any production outside the US.  The first issue is that the US needs MORE production in the interim to not be so dependent upon foreign hydrocarbons, with maybe a secondary that we should make sure we have excellent relations with Canada and Mexico because they are our American neighbors - and they have the juice.  

But the matter of fact is that most branded companies such as Exxon-MOBIL and others are shell corporations for overseas and offshored companies that when controlled by THEIR COUNTRY OF OPERATION must produce or not produce "x" amount of hydrocarbons.  In other words, Exxon cannot control the Gulf of Nigeria or Maricaibo, Venezuela because those matters are completely out of its hand.  In OPEC nations, they must produce what the authorities or kingdoms day, or they can pack sand and go home.  You and I and our little trifling computers cannot tell them they have to reduce any supply anywhere, no-how.  

To do so would possibly involve World War III.  Please stay with me, because this is how I think the supply-side argument is not only stupid but belligerent, arrogant, and war-like.  To actually tell everyone in the producing countries to stop producing so much, which are a lot more than your simplistic assessment of 120 oil fields, you'd have to invade them and take them over, moat of them at least.  

At the end of the day, we will see that such an approach is ultimate folly, much like Wolfowitz's Neo-Con argument that oil could pay for the battle of Iraq.  What are they burning, like ten million gallons of fuel oil a day over there just hanging out?  Well Wolfy-baby is soon to be history and his silly supply-side arguments will hopefully go home with him as well.  Or to hell.  /sammie

Onward through the fog

Such end scenarios are not realistic.  Humanity will solve the issue.  I am an optimist.

Tax it now with a revenue neutral tax, and vilify all carbon fuel.  A tax will make the marketplace work.  If it isn't doing what its supposed to in 3 years, get rid of the "neutral" part of the tax, and invest in alternatives.

Pessimists will not save the planet.

Cheers, Gary Gifford

There has always been government regulation, to varying extents, and doesn't seem to have hampered much economic "growth" yet.  With globalized production, media, and advertising control, it doesn't take long for any newborn to become a "consumer" anywhere in the world now.

... but I am passionate about my faith that the US will lower energy demand, just because of the costs alone.  Why would huge corporations such as Wal-Mart and Kroger reduce electrical needs?  Well, it's a leading cost of doing business other than people and merchandise.  Why is the commercial transportation sector reducing diesel consumption?  Why are airlines trying to reduce taxi and approach time?  Why are foreign cars selling better than big-box American vehicles?  It's the cost of energy!

Milton Friedman if alive today would become unglued by such talk of social engineering at either end, requiring cuts in supply or demand.  He would scoff at the Ethanol Subsidy.  None of that stuff works, and if it does, nearly always leads to disaster.  I guess I don't trust the government on this one, right?

-sammie

Onward through the fog

On this issue terms for the same thing. Basically issue permits or put a tax on production and import of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas).  If everyone does that the demand will drop. As a matter of politics you may want to compensate oil producing nations for this. So do the same thing we do to farmers in the U.s. Pay them not produce oil

Sam Wells. The free market has had plenty of time to reduce energy consumption on its own. There are various reasons the "free market" will never reduce energy consumption without major interventions - carbon taxes, permitting systems, regulations. You "just don't trust the government" but you trust Exxon and Walmart? We have to work through untrustworthy institutions no matter what. But at least we have something to say about how the government runs. Incidentally are you still drving on those government subsidized roads? Is your home in an area where nasty government financed fire departments will put out the flames if it catches on fire. Are there evil goverment financed or subsidized emergency services in your area? How about that horrible red tape that lets you summon help by dialing 911 in a crisis? Want to do without that. Were you educated entirely in private schools, or did evil government money hlep pay for your education?

Milton Friedman was perfectly happy to help support murderers in Chile after the coup. So I don't care whether the policies required to solve the global warming gives him a moment of comfort in whatever pit he is burning in.

Governments should generally not fund R&D.

Instead they should provide "buydowns" of the cost of a socially desirable commodity.

For instance, flu shots, or college education.

And in this case, renewable electricity, energy effecient vehicles, and appliances.

But please leave the government funding out of the R&D process. Thats what venture capital is for.  "Market effeciency" is a polite way of saying that "9 out of 10 of these businesses won't make it"

Basically:
Governments should set the goals for a socially desirable products.
Businesses should find the methods to achieve those goals through the products they sell.
Governments should then make sure those businesses get rewarded proportional to their sale of those socially desirable products.  (Either through targeted possitive incentives or broad negative incentives)

If you believe in free markets and smart venture capital then you have not been there.

Most of my applied research came from basic research exclusively funded by the feds.  The suppression of renewable energy came via r&d budgets zeroed-out.  Reagan did a lot more than just removing the solar hot water collectors from the White House roof.

Thats why it's good not to merely do carrots.

Infact the best methods are usually ones that involve both carrots and sticks.

My favorite ones being, "The crappy performers pay the uber performers"

Feebates!

That way tax payer dollars aren't even needed.

I like feebates but only up to a point. In a feebate you are choosing winners and losers. So they makes sense where there are strong metrics - for example automobiles. In essence, anything a feebate can do an efficiency regulation can do. Since vice-versa is true also, and feebates are probably more popular, I'm happy to support them where appropriate. But you still need some GHG taxation per unit of emission. You can't rely on feebates as the sole means of carbon taxation. And R&D is the an extremely appropriate place for tax dollars to be spent. Hell, that is a real public good that tends to under-provided. Most economists will tell you the same thing - across the spectrum from left to right.R&D is no substitute for other actions that also need to be taken; but it certainly is one thing that has to be publicly funded, and not just for greenhouse solutions.

I think I follow all the good arguments here, and appreciate the candor.  Governments ar pretty good at when they levy taxes, which seems to be their best job - and nothing I said would prevent governments from imposing further taxes on energy because they'd been doing it for at least a century now.  Let's dig a little deeper.

Coal, oil, natural gas, and even ethanol is taxed and you pay the price as a consumer and the supplier even has to pay taxes too.  I think what many folks would like to see is a "value-added tax" based on carbon content.  I hope that makes sense.

The question is whether the tax system would be slapped on top of all the other kinds of taxes, or made fresh from scratch using a unified system.  By that I only mean that states and countries would somehow align a carbon tax similar to the European VAT.  This tax should be fair, equitable, and be based on a metric of heating value, carbon content, or however is best.

This would help level the playing field in the market and be completely consistent with the principle of free markets.  However, if one proposes to slap on more taxes on top of the existing systems, willy-nilly, without such care as to a level playing field, I fear that would be government meddling of the worst sort.  That seems to be a common proposal heard on this forum and I guess I find it objectionable.

As to the commenter about R&D investment by the government, that is never a "free market system" but is seed money used to help create new markets.  R&D has a ton of permitting and tax exemptions; the only problem is that the policy wonks won't fund an appropriate mix of projects with adequate funding.  That is not a failure of the system - it means you need to vote the jerks out of office!
sammie

Onward through the fog

>>> The free market has had plenty of time to reduce energy consumption on its own  >>>

Hope you are right, BUT I think y'all are totally deluded.

LOL, how about 10 years to phase out coal, oil, gas and all life on Earth.

Each day from a long time ago, the global climate problem becomes more and more intractable.  Even if a solution is found soon enough, there will still be a mammoth fight to the death if LIFE is to survive

There is no time left to talk... the real cause of global climate change is still being DELIBERATELY sidestepped ...... really really pathetic, and unbelievably irresponsible.  
Live now, don't care about the future, eh? LOL

Caught in a trap, and can't get out....All y'all can think about is fuel for your car.

Action NOW
omegafour.com

I did not say the free market HAS plenty of time. Said it HAD plenty of time. Meaning if free market was going to solve the problem, it would have.

Hi, Gar

sorry for misinterpretation... good to see you are deeply committed.

>> if free market was going to solve the problem, it would have. >>>

LOL, mmmh.

omegafour.com