In order to address the threat from global warming we need significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions. A lot of people think we need to put a price on carbon emissions to accomplish this. Many also believe this will spur innovation and create ‘green jobs’. Fossil fuel technologies are already well developed, but renewable and alternative fuel technologies can continue to develop and become more advanced for a long time.
Taking everything into consideration – the climate, environment in general, economy, jobs, etc. – what do you think the best policy solution is for addressing global warming? Does it involve a carbon tax? A cap and trade system? Something else entirely?
I’m not sure yet.
I quite like Lomborg’s suggestion of $2/ton on CO2 to be spent entirely on R&D of new energy technologies, with patents available to all. $25bn/yr would be a ten-fold increase in investment and it _should_ lead to breakthroughs that will bring renewable techs to market quickly.
Right now I think we need to stabilise somewhere between 500-550ppm CO2 (compared with politicians who’re talking about 450ppm), and my favoured solution is either a carbon tax, with money raised split between countries by population and pollution levels (eg Americans start with much more money per person, but slowly it contracts and converges). This is simpler than cap & trade and countries can do what they want with the money.
Alternatively, a simpler ‘cap and trade’ system would sell all permits at auction and companies would have to buy permits to dig up fossil fuels or chop down trees. Permits would be generated by planting trees or burying CO2. Only real carbon fluxes are considered, and there are fewer companies (so less bureaucracy) dealing with this. Easier than regulating every smokestack and car exhaust… Again, money would be given to countries to spend using ‘contraction and convergence’.
In the case of my country, I’d hope a portion would go to renewable R&D, and the rest would be split evenly between the population. This way it’s ‘progressive’.
The costs would be the ‘deadweight loss’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss
Which would be significantly lower than the headline figure.
i don’t think there is a single "best" solution.
clearly industry responds to cap and trade solutions.
and they respond to taxes.
but it should be considered that there are different economies around the world, and they’re not all the same, just as morality is not the same.
Americans respond best to money. A prius is not the prettiest car around, but it is the cheapest if you drive a lot of miles. There are hundreds of them being used as taxicabs in San Francisco because they get a credit from the city for doing that. Money talks.
If i had to guess, the carpool lane stickers helped with those who have crummy commutes. That was a piece of brilliant thinking. (Even got me looking, although i don’t need a car at the moment.)
The real problem is what do you do with developing countries? I’d think that import tax would be appropriate for that.
So, I don’t think there is a single best solution.
I also think there are lots of smart folks, and someone will come up with something that’ll beat what we see today.
Outlaw the internal combustion engine. (I’m serious)
Start with small engines like lawnmowers. They should now be electric only.
We don’t need all that… We should make bio–diesel out of prisoners and the deceased. School children should be required to walk on power generating treadmills for at least 1 hour a day. We should send illegals back to their low carbon footprint homeland. We can cut emissions from China by manufacturing stuff in the US.
The best Policy Decision is to ignore global warming completely – it isn’t a real world problem. Check out the US Senate Report.
380 ppm = trace gas (0.038 percent) – nothing to worry about.
The best fit for a graph of undoctored temperatures over the last century is a flat line.
CO2 is beneficial, it is insane to call it pollution. We should be concentrating on cleaning real pollutants out of our air and water, not focusing limited resources on a non-existent problem.
there isn’t a best way but when i watched this show it said that airplanes create artificial clouds making it warmer. if we were to take less flights or have eco friendly planes we could reduce the carbon footprint and this called earth hour which is today uncannily coinciding with the kid’s choice awards. wow looks like children will try to kill there own generation
I got a space heater. Be careful, sometimes renters insurance chargers you more.
Nothing it is a myth and hoax .
Maybe we face facts instead of continue to believe the hoax and fake science the "scientists" have now admitted to.
Global warming is unproven. If you care about teh envirnment, do other things over which you have direct control. Things YOU do like not drive everywhere, reduce your purchasing (especially of overly packaged things), compost, keep lights and appliance use to a minimum. Turn down or off the heating and cooling in your house. Lots of things.
Cap and trade is a good way to ruin our country and make us non competitive. Look to the EU – they are even abandoning it.
First, spend your resources where they will do the most KNOWN good. Cars are not a very good place to spend a lot of limited resources. Cars only produce about 8% of all the CO2 produced by man. Even if you took every car off the road, it probably would not make a really significant difference in global warming. We can cut half of that easily and quickly by just going to small diesels (Like Europe) and smaller vehicles, hybrids, etc. which take no new research and experimental resources.
Most of man’s CO2 comes from electrical and steam power for our homes and industry. All we need to cut this significantly is more Nuclear everywhere, and Solar / Wind Generation in locations where they can at least come close to breaking even. The Nuclear is the most important because it is reliable and can provide the 24/7 power reliability needed. Solar and Wind cannot.
This plan works whether or not you believe in AGW. We will be doing it to get off foreign oil primarily, but if AGW or Naturally occurring warming is happening and reducing CO2 will help, we get an added benefit.
While we are building Nuclear, we should be put all our research and development resources into improving Nuclear power, Solar, and Wind, as well as finding a replacement for Nuclear power (H2, Fusion, ???) in the future. At the same time we should be doing more research and study of Global Climate Change / Warming so we might someday really understand this very complex process. It is obvious we do not yet.
Sit tight…a year from now and you will be cringing with embarrassment that you even believed it was a problem
Man this forum is dead! And on Earth Hour no less!
Whassamatta Dana you losin’ followers or what? I guess your dogma didn’t have the staying power as that of Jeebus or MuBOMBed huh? That’s ok, you’ll still receive your reward in the Green afterlife, you just keep the faith brother!
yeah, more taxes….thats exactly what we need. "If you don’t agree, tough." That is the perfect approach.
Fossil fuel technologies well developed?!?!?! Do you know the average efficiency of combustion engines and other products that run on petrol? (It is sickening)
Edit:
Also, green jobs are thriving. In my major, we are being encouraged to take a senior level green chemistry class so we will be more adaptable to the changing environment.
I am "burying my head in the sand"? If you want to shovel more money into this, be my guest. Don’t force me to do the same, I already have to buy health care or be penalized.
Cap and trade certainly is not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than burying your head in the sand and pretending there isn’t a problem.
Pretending Solar activity in the last 30 years has warmed Mars
Pretending Co2 isn’t a greenhouse gas
Pretending Scientists are all "out to get you"
Dana welcome back, I can’t help but wonder if your return is linked to the sudden inactivity of the ex top answerer, has he taken his bat ball and jelly crystals and gone home.
Right now, all climate neutral energy sources come in the form of electricity, be it nuclear, wind, solar, or "blue" energy. Biofuels have very limited potential and very probably enhance global warming.Electricity requires infrastructure, and just to be able to plug new technologies, huge investment are required.
Right now, most electricity grids are organized as a hub: a few centres where electricity is produced in predictable and controllable quantities. renewables such as solar and wind are inherently unpredictable, require as much more consumption stations, and are likely to be produced in deserts or seas, far away from consumption sites. Networks already have great difficulty accepting electricity from wind and solar on traditional networks A more suitable production and consumption grid would resemble a peer-to-peer network. Produce and consume in multiple locations, and use multiple, dispersed units for storage. For instance the batteries in our (future) electric cars.
To build infrastructure that supports such dispersed energy production requires vast investments, and implies huge risks. The only actor that can carry the risks of such an investment is a government.
Since a cap and trade market would provide little funds (the goal of making a market in the first place is to siphon off as little capital as possible) a tax is necessary. Taxation of fossil fuels would be a good candidate: taxation of fossils discourages their use, thereby limiting the technological lock in. As a bonus, such a tax will cushion the effects of price-spikes on the economy. Partnerships with companies can bring in the necessary capital and knowledge, but building such innovative infrastructure requires leadership and vision that only a large, continuous organization like a government can deliver.
A lot of people here will scream: communism! rely on markets, that’s how people choose what they really want. Fact is that the oil-industry is the best sponsored industry in the world. Risks for investments are typically carried by governments, operations are protected by the (US) military since the dawn of the oil-age without any question, and environmental effects are turned to the local population. Without extensive government support, the oil industry would never have grown to the size it is now.
However, taxation alone does not shift resources to efficient producers automatically. To encourage (fossil) energy efficiency, or innovation in energy creation, cap and trade is more effective. So the answer is: both. Use taxes to make investments and provide leadership the market could never provide, use a cap and trade system to encourage efficiency.
An additional policy to enhance market transparency could be the issuing of energy standards or labels. In the US, i believe you already have the LEED system for public buildings. Such a system should also apply to family homes, or even breakfast cereals. consumers can place more weight on energy efficiency through such a system, than through a system that measures everything only in dollars.
I hope that the energy transition can be done quick enough to put a stop to global warming. Even more so, i hope that the energy transition can be made before civilization comes to a grinding halt.
Right now, there is not a single thing, luxury or necessity, that has not been produced, stored or transported without using heaps of oil. When oil-shortages become a reality, the question is not if our economy will shrink, but how much. No matter what we invent for alternative energy supply, it will never be as easy and convenient as oil. The only improvement we can hope for is that our new sources will be less polluting than our old energy sources..
Lets start with what behaviours are needed.
People need to recognise that global warming is just one of the damaging outcomes of wasteful consumerism. Unless people change their behaviour rising fuel prices, widespread polution and global warming will cause enormous suffering. They need to recognise that simpler lifestyles are more fun and more sustainable. We need to recognise that global warming and environmental concerns are not in conflict. Economic development based upon wasteful use of resources is unsustainable and certain to lead to economic as well as social and environmental damage. On the other hand simpler lifestyles conserve resources and lead to health and wellbeing benefits.
Once people recognise these facts they will begin to demand policies that set our economies in the right direction. Instead of encouraging debt fuelled consumerism governments must encourage frugality and the development of sustainable economic activities. Carbon taxes can be used to reduce demand for fossil fuels and the revenue can be invested in sustainable energy generation and the aleviation of poverty. This later point is important because the gap between rich and poor will make change more difficult to achieve.
Governments must cease to measure their success in tems of Gross Domestic Product and should develop measures of wellbeing instead. It is far better to improve health and happiness rather than the volume of goods consumed. Economic activities that generate power sustainably or that conserve power should be encouraged and those that waste resources (such as aviation) should be discouraged. (At present aviation receives enormous tax concessions throughout the world with the consequence that it has grown enormously at the expense of other less wasteful industries such as dometic tourism).
Best wishes for a more sustainable future.
Taxes.
And wot JSB said. Funnily, the change of attitude is taking hold in a few unlikely places including mainstream industry. Hope for us yet.
I don’t think there is any one solution to global warming as some of the other contributors to the thread have said, but I think the single biggest step that could be taken is to stop seeing ourselves as consumers of resources (like carbon) and to start viewing our energy consumption and generation as a bank account with no overdraft facility. Therefore if you take, you also have to give. Whether that is heating your home with a Zero Carbon Energy Tariff, or fitting solar panels to the roof to generate your own energy, the key point is to not take without giving. I think as more customers choose these options then the cost of production and acquisition will make them more affordable, which will therefore lead to further demand.
In many ways it is a classic innovator, early adopter, mainstream, late adopter supply and demand curve, but it is also one that we must be aware needs to happen over a as short a period of time as possible to correct the damage already done. Whether a carbon tax is used or not I think that we should be mindful that market speeding factors of all kinds are the way forward.