Comments on: On the eve of destruction

By: Macro

Macro — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:23:19 +0000

I agree entirely with the points you have raised CTG. But consider the average consumer. Suppose they drive their car 20000km per year? Is the petrol company wanting them to drive 18000km per year next year? I think not. How are they to be encouraged to use less? The price of petrol goes up – the ones who can afford to pay simply drive as before – those who can’t – stop driving. Maybe the target of 10% reduction is met, but the result is increasing inequity.

By: CTG

CTG — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:10:22 +0000

A couple of points:

1) Reducing emissions does not necessarily involve reducing energy consumption. It probably will involve reducing centrally-generated energy, by means of things like solar water heaters, co-generation and the like. These things are great for consumers, but not so great for shareholders of electricity generators.

2) The whole point of an (effective) ETS is to externalise the costs of carbon pollution. If carbon-producing companies are made to pay the true costs of producing carbon, they will quickly switch to methods of production that don’t involve producing carbon. If, on the other hand, the government introduces an ETS that a) sets a cap on the price of carbon, and b) doesn’t set a cap on carbon emissions, then the carbon-producing companies will go on merrily producing carbon until the end of time – which is about another 50 years at the present rate.

By: Macro

Macro — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:29:18 +0000

Yes I know what “Capitalism” means R2 – I suspect you don’t though. Capitalism for a start is based on 17th Century science and on the incorrect assumption that there are limitless resources. Furthermore the concept of “private property” upon which Capitalism is based on the fallible ethics of John Locke, which he developed for the express purpose of conferring “title” on land in the new country of America. Locke’s ethics never took into account the fact that land was a finite quantity and took no account of indigenous rights.
Now the fundamental building block of the capitalist system is the private company – the purpose of which, is to maximize profit. In most cases that would entail the company selling as much of its product for the least cost. (Are you with me R2?) The next fundamental plank is to grow that profit. You normally do that by increasing your sales.
Now suppose your product is energy. What is the role of the Energy Company, R2? Yes that’s right – it’s to sell as much of it as it can!
Unfortunately – what Capitalism doesn’t take into account is the the waste product. The objective is to sell the product for the least cost and if a Company can get away with pollution – that is precisely what it will do.
Nor is a Company interested in rationing its product, it wants to sell as much of it, as it can produce, and the more forward orders it has the better. Indeed it will advertise its product intensely – offer discounts – fly buys etc etc so that people will choose to buy even more!
So if a country wants to REDUCE its energy consumption. (And reducing GGE implies in many instances reducing energy consumption). A market approach doesn’t seem a very sensible way to go about it! It’s a bit like getting the fox to watch the hen house. It just isn’t going to work.
A regulatory body with the power to direct resources to where they are needed – such as that most conservative of PM s Churchill established in WW2 under the leadership of that eminent businessman Lord Beaverbrook is what is going to be needed. Or else we are stuffed!

By: nowombats

nowombats — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:21:35 +0000

The climate doesn’t give a toss whether you’re green, red, blue, black yellow, beige or ecru. It’s time to find common ground – what works is what matters. Pragmatism over philosophy – it’s time to get over ourselves and all muck in.

By: samv

samv — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:05:11 +0000

I for one am all for markets – where they work. But where the necessary pre-conditions to a functioning market are not to be found – for instance, a large burden for carrying out business is placed on those not participating in it, or where cartels or monopolies form – you must be prepared to do something about it or else submit to the despotism of corporate rule. Nationalization is one (extreme) option, regulation is another.

By: StephenR

StephenR — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:53:09 +0000

A have a suspicion that a lot of so called â€˜greensâ€™ are very red on the inside.

Some openly are. Some could be. Some people would like to think they all are. Some really really aren’t, unless you’re a hardcore libertarian. Make sure you make the distinction

By: CTG

CTG — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 13:37:55 +0000

And there we have it: anyone who wants the planet to have a future must be a communist, is that it, R2?

Whereas you just want to see the end of all civilization, so that makes you the good guy, does it?

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:31:13 +0000

Talk about cancer for the cure, nationalisation of private industry?

You say capitalism is not the answer – so what is the alternative? A centrally planned economy? Command and control?

A have a suspicion that a lot of so called ‘greens’ are very red on the inside. Maybe they should try living in one of the few communist countries left in the world for a little while.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp

http://capitalism.org/faq/capitalism.htm

By: CTG

CTG — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 05:08:10 +0000

Even the NZIER report, which grossly overestimates costs, and underestimates benefits, doesn’t say that we need to cut GDP from today’s levels. It talks about an impact on future GDP, i.e. GDP that we don’t yet have, which is a very different thing to “cuts to GDP” which is what you said.

Please show me some evidence that we would need to cut GDP in order to reduce emissions.

By: CTG

CTG — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 02:05:29 +0000

Ah right, so you are still ignoring any positive benefits of reducing emissions.