PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

TEQs : Carbon Rations : not Auctions or Giveaways
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> TEQs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jo



Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 184
Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 4:27 am    Post subject: TEQs : Carbon Rations : not Auctions or Giveaways Reply with quote

Let us consider the small matter of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.

Brave, radical, progressive : but severely compromised and melted down and scraped back (much like the Kyoto Protocol).

The EU ETS has turned out to be a sort of birthday party or Christmas for the large energy producers/consumers - with Carbon Rights given to them for free - which they then passed on to their consumers for the hypothetical price of the Carbon Rights they had acquired - a windfall to them and higher prices for the end consumer.

So, that was the Giveaway.

Now comes the Auction : a certain percentage of the Carbon Rights for the next period will be scramble auctioned - if you scramble for it - and you have enough capital at your disposal to scramble for it - you can get it. For Gold Rush, read Carbon Rush. Not pretty. Wealth as usual.

So, why is it hard for commentators to see that the proposal for Energy Rations could actually be (a) Fair and (b) Right ?

Are some people deliberately muddying, obfuscating ?

Take one Myron Ebell, a man with a name that sounds like an acute disease of the liver :-

http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=407

"The theory that rationing energy is an efficient path towards confronting climate change is even now being disproved by the experience of the European Union," says Myron Ebell, director of energy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "A nation that embraces innovation, growth and resiliency rather than energy rationing will be better equipped to deal with whatever challenges the future holds."

What, I ask you, can further innovation in the increasing use of Carbon-based Energy and resources do to reduce Carbon Emissions ?

And how does economic growth get de-coupled from emissions ?

And how exactly does reliance on fossil fuels make one's economy "resilient" at all ?

Post-prandial ponderables, all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14570
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All efficiency gains are wiped out by economic growth - faster than efficiency gains are made. This is the purpose of today's economic thinking, to grow at all costs and feck the consequences.

My belief if that the human race has to be forced - shocked - into changing this thinking. It will not change course alone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaun Chamberlin



Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 119
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:

My belief is that the human race has to be forced - shocked - into changing this thinking. It will not change course alone.


If not alone then by whose hand? Gaia? Thus far it seems clear that humanity as a whole will not wake to the consequences of its actions by those means until well after the die is cast.

Or do you believe certain members of humanity should help with these shock tactics?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 8356

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Significant pre-emptive action seems highly unlikely. I expect "the problem", however it specifically chooses to manifest itself will largely hit society by surprise and unprepared. What will determine our fait is how we are able to act in response to the problem and just how serious the problem turns out to be.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14570
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaunus4 wrote:
emordnilap wrote:

My belief is that the human race has to be forced - shocked - into changing this thinking. It will not change course alone.


Thus far it seems clear that humanity as a whole will not wake to the consequences of its actions by those means until well after the die is cast.
That's what I mean.

Shaunus4 wrote:
Or do you believe certain members of humanity should help with these shock tactics?
No. No need. It's going to happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaun Chamberlin



Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 119
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
Shaunus4 wrote:
emordnilap wrote:

My belief is that the human race has to be forced - shocked - into changing this thinking. It will not change course alone.


Thus far it seems clear that humanity as a whole will not wake to the consequences of its actions by those means until well after the die is cast.
That's what I mean.

Shaunus4 wrote:
Or do you believe certain members of humanity should help with these shock tactics?
No. No need. It's going to happen.


But when you say we "have" to be forced - to what end? Of course the consequences are going to happen, but surely there's no point in changing humanity's thinking if it's too late by then for us to do anything with this hard-earned new viewpoint?

clv101 seems to be saying he hopes that the consequences will hit early enough or lightly enough that we can still make a difference from there.

The thing is it seems to me they're already hitting fairly hard and still only a minority of those in a position to do something are waking up to it. I guess then our job is to get on with shaking people! Wink

Or are you saying that you think we're just too unwise as a species to get through this one?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 14570
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shaunus4 wrote:
Or are you saying that you think we're just too unwise as a species to get through this one?
That's more or less what I'm thinking. You've put it more eloquently than me; thanks.

The people who contribute the most to climate change and resource depletion are the ones so far least affected by it. And look how concerned they are! Evidence of their eyes is not enough; the earth is going to have to give them evidence of their other senses too, directly. Perhaps even that won't work.

Here's a quote from a posting on the Monbiot forum this morning:

Quote:
run next door to your neighbour, and while the family is sitting in front of the TV watching Eastenders and feeding their obese faces with beer and crisps, ask them what they think of climate change, or peak oil, or alternative energy, or recycling or walking or eating locally grown food. You want Gloom and Doom? Listen to their answer while they force down another handful of crisps and tell you to get the F--k out of their viewing area.


I'm not saying most people are like that - but there are a hell of a lot. We can only lead by example and hope doing so make us the fittest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12667
Location: York

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
run next door to your neighbour, and while the family is sitting in front of the TV watching Eastenders and feeding their obese faces with beer and crisps, ask them what they think of climate change, or peak oil, or alternative energy, or recycling or walking or eating locally grown food. You want Gloom and Doom? Listen to their answer while they force down another handful of crisps and tell you to get the **** out of their viewing area.


Oh that's not fair! You'd be bound to get a much better response to exactly the same question from exactly the same individuals if you only asked it at a more appropriate time.

In fact, there's been quite a lot of study of the best times to put life-changeing possibilities to people. New job, new house, arrival of baby, (just after) health shock, New Year, during planning of anything (eg new decor), morning rather than evening, I could go on (for England _ ed)!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaun Chamberlin



Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 119
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:

In fact, there's been quite a lot of study of the best times to put life-changing possibilities to people. New job, new house, arrival of baby, (just after) health shock, New Year, during planning of anything (eg new decor), morning rather than evening, I could go on (for England _ ed)!


Speaking of which, I particularly recommend Chapters 6 and 10 of the Painting the Town Green report (pdf) on communicating climate change and prompting behavioural change, from our Lean Economy Connection links page. They really helped me understand this better, and I have quite a few changes to make to my approach in light of them.

emordnilap wrote:

We can only lead by example and hope doing so make us the fittest.


I like trying to lead by example, and trying to communicate. The implications of hoping that this makes us the fittest I'm less comfortable with. From my spiritual perspective at least it's trying to reduce the suffering (and increase the joy!) in the world that brings contentment - it doesn't matter so much if that suffering or joy happens to be mine or someone else's, even if I may have more control over one than the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Keepz



Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 478

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:18 pm    Post subject: Re: TEQs : Carbon Rations : not Auctions or Giveaways Reply with quote

jo wrote:
Let us consider the small matter of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.

Brave, radical, progressive : but severely compromised and melted down and scraped back (much like the Kyoto Protocol).

The EU ETS has turned out to be a sort of birthday party or Christmas for the large energy producers/consumers - with Carbon Rights given to them for free - which they then passed on to their consumers for the hypothetical price of the Carbon Rights they had acquired - a windfall to them and higher prices for the end consumer.

So, that was the Giveaway.

Now comes the Auction : a certain percentage of the Carbon Rights for the next period will be scramble auctioned - if you scramble for it - and you have enough capital at your disposal to scramble for it - you can get it. For Gold Rush, read Carbon Rush. Not pretty. Wealth as usual.

So, why is it hard for commentators to see that the proposal for Energy Rations could actually be (a) Fair and (b) Right ?


Why do you think Governments would be any better at determining what would be the right amount of energy to allow each one of us, than they have been at determining how much carbon to allow to participants in the EU ETS?

There's no reason why a carbon allowance auction need be a scramble; it depends how it's organised. What it means is that each participant would bid for allowances at a price just south of what it would cost them to reduce their carbon emissions - thus, if I can reduce emissions by spending ?30/tonne, it would be worth my while to spend ?29/tonne for a carbon permit which will enable me to carry on emitting - but it wouldn't be worth spending ?31/tonne, it would be cheaper for me to carry out the abatement instead.

Everybody makes their own particular calculation and bids accordingly; allowances are then sold, to the highest bidder first and then to the next highest bidder, and so on until you run out - then everybody who hasn't got an allowance has to spend the money that they would have spent on the allowance if they'd got it, on carbon abatement instead. Carbon abatement is therefore concentrated in those sectors who can deliver most of it per pound spent, and they will want to do it in the most cost-efficient way possible - thus, there's a clear incentive to invent and invest in new ways of reducing carbon. That might be through greater energy efficiency, or use of non-fossil fuels, or carbon capture and storage - no one of these is the right way for everybody, which it's why it would be wrong for the Government to attempt to prescribe which is the best way.

Quote:


Take one Myron Ebell, a man with a name that sounds like an acute disease of the liver :-

http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=407

"The theory that rationing energy is an efficient path towards confronting climate change is even now being disproved by the experience of the European Union," says Myron Ebell, director of energy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "A nation that embraces innovation, growth and resiliency rather than energy rationing will be better equipped to deal with whatever challenges the future holds."

What, I ask you, can further innovation in the increasing use of Carbon-based Energy and resources do to reduce Carbon Emissions ?

And how does economic growth get de-coupled from emissions ?

And how exactly does reliance on fossil fuels make one's economy "resilient" at all ?

Post-prandial ponderables, all.


I didn't see Mr Ebell saying that the innovation would increase the use of carbon-based energy, or that nations which didn't ration energy had to carry on being reliant on fossil fuels. As explained above, innovation can be directed towards reducing carbon emissions, which might be through reducing energy use or through using non-fossil fuels, if the economic incentives are right, as they would be under a properly managed carbon trading scheme.

Economic growth most certainly can get de-coupled from emissions. In the UK our energy use has been pretty much flat despite continuing economic growth and emissions from the electricity generating sector have actually reduced. In the States last year they achieved an absolute 1.5% reduction in carbon emissions - that's a 4% reduction in cartbon intensity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jo



Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 184
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Keeper of the Flame

Regarding NAP (National Allocation Plans) under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) : in my humble opinion, this has been a compromise of a compromise.

Certain large point emitters of Carbon were excluded, and the NAPs that were agreed were subject to intense lobbying and some nations even got more allocations that they actually used.

Owing to interference of competing interests (that is, corporate profit-makers versus Carbon regulators), the scheme has not been an unmitigated success.

The first phase has suffered greatly from over-provision of NAPs and the "Curse of VAT" - whereby free quotas made to corporates resulted bizarrely in utility bill increases as the corporates passed on their virtual costs to purchase quotas - the idea being that in future they will have to pay for real.

It has proved impossible to maintain a reasonably sufficient Carbon price (one that will change behaviour in the use of Carbon Energy).

By contrast, a Carbon Rights or Carbon Rationing scheme, where the total Carbon rights are divided between the two sectors of Consumers and Producers, would be truly able to control and cap Carbon.

It would be merely necessary to decide the national total and then divide it up between the two sectors.

All Carbon Energy is supplied into the markets by a very few "upstream" primary producers, and so it is possible to enforce a Carbon Energy cap.

Regarding Carbon auctions : I resent anything that smacks of "competition" when it comes to Carbon Rights.

Organisations with large reserves of Capital, such as the secondary energy producers, such as electricity generators, will win in the Auctions.

The price that is paid for the Allocations will not reflect the amount of Carbon abatement that can be achieved.

Those who are already wealthy, that is making a cost profit from their business, will win the Carbon auctions, and so maintain their wealth generation capability.

They will pass their Auction costs onto their consumers.

Wealth as usual.

Carbon abatement potential : minimal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jo



Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 184
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:03 am    Post subject: Cost versus Carbon Reply with quote

@Keeper of the Flame

My absolute basic problem is that I cannot see how Cost can be successfully used as a mechanism to control Carbon.

Everything that has been tried so far has been compromised.

The original idea of "Cap and Trade" is fine for a sectoral issue - such as HFCs.

The whole economy can withstand a cost for exotic chemicals by replacing them with less noxious chemicals that may or may not cost more, with a certain investment/changeover cost.

The problem with Carbon Dioxide is that it is prevalent and ubiquitous. The whole economy relies on CO2 emissions. We are highly dependent on Carbon Energy and Carbon Dioxide chemistry.

Not just for warming and cooling, not only for transportation and manufacture and electricity, but also for agricultural chemical industry, for concrete/cement, for timber (deforestation corrupts the Carbon sinks, causing Carbon emissions), for everything.

With Carbon control, we have to effect the equivalent of pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps.

Whatever price is given to Carbon, this cost percolates through the entire Economy, and we end up with devalued currencies.

The only way is up - for the price of everything.

Pricing Carbon is a surefire way to create increased inflation - which added to the recessionary pressures we are seeing from the Credit Crunch (created by wealth inequalities) is bound to make life more expensive in a compound way.

The only way to handle it will be to reduce interest rates until there is no net gain in lending money - at which point you can expect the whole globalised money system to break down.

I don't want Carbon to have a price. I want Carbon to have a value.

In other words, I want people to value Carbon.

I want people to have guaranteed access to energy. In the short-term that means access to Carbon Energy.

To give value in a system with a cap on Carbon Energy, the only mechanism is to share the Carbon Budget - in other words Carbon Rations.

Regarding Energy Efficiency : I believe that most of the technological gains have already been made in manufactured goods and machine equipment. I don't see much gain being made in aviation, and there is nowhere that the car manufacturers can run too with the proposed emissions reductions in Europe.

There is a lot to be gained from reducing the energy use of buildings - both residential and corporate (and governmental) - but this will not be promoted by Carbon Auctions - as corporate energy use is not part of the energy trade with the customer base.

Corporate energy efficiency will be part of schemes to save money within the organisations, not in trading with anyone.

Voluntary innovation is always very minor compared to legislated scenarios - so any Carbon scheme must be part of a framework where organisations and people do not think they can buy their way out of having to innovate and reduce their consumption.

Carbon Trading is showing its colours - some of the credits are proving to be fake - others dubious.

Carbon Taxation would just make life generally more costly without truly capping Carbon.

It's time to set a proper cap on Carbon - it's time to share the cake.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jo



Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 184
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:26 am    Post subject: Carbon Intensity versus Carbon Caps Reply with quote

@Keeper of the Flame

It's useless to reduce Carbon intensity if you do not also cap Carbon activity.

For an example : if you improve the efficiency of a petrol/diesel burning car engine by a third, but then sell twice as many cars, you lose.

The American policy of increasing energy use efficiency, of lowering Carbon intensity, is fine as long as it is in the framework of an overall Carbon cap.

So far, economic growth has meant continued expansion of Carbon Energy-related activities, which has pushed up Carbon Emissions.

If economies continue to grow at, say 3% a year, but Carbon intensity reduces by only 1% a year, you still lose the Carbon game.

In your example of the United States, how much of the Carbon emissions reductions were a result of intentional emissions reduction policy ? None.

How much reduction in Carbon Emissions was due to improved energy efficiency ? Not much.

How much reduction in Carbon Emissions was due to business being offshored to other countries due to globalisation ? Loads, I suspect.

The only way that the US economy can continue to grow is by increasing levels of imported goods, and consequently exporting the Carbon emissions.

Why do I confidently assert this ? Because at the moment it is impossible for an economy to grow without an increase in Carbon emissions somewhere on the planet.

Because all the economies are currently highly dependent on Carbon Energy.

There is no way to avoid overshooting our Carbon Budgets unless we drastically increase the amount of renewable energy resources and drastically decrease energy demand.

This, pragmatically, means that we have to drastically decrease levels of economic growth.

But, there's no need to legislate for that fortunately (or unfortunately). Rising oil prices due to Peak Oil and Peak Gas, all forms of Carbon Pricing, and a worldwide Credit Crunch will put paid to economic growth.

Expect a major global economic recession.

You heard it here second.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Keepz



Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 478

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:48 am    Post subject: Re: Cost versus Carbon Reply with quote

Blimey.

I completely and utterly agree that EU ETS carbon allowances should not have been given out for free. It was blindingly obvious from the start that this would subject the scheme to lobbying by vested interests who would inevitably win, having an informational advantage over Government, and that they would then go on to make lots of money out of it - particularly in the case of those industries who were able to raise their prices in the absence of overseas competition, notably the electricity generators.

Some people were amazed and upset when that happened, which just shows how naive and economically uninformed some people are. What did they think would be the result of giving out for free, something which is worth money? It's absolutely right that the carbon cost of a product should ultimately be passed to the consumer, because by including carbon costs in end products, you encourage consumption away from carbon-intensive and towards low-carbon products and processes.

As for the auction being won by the rich - no matter how rich you are, it still doesn't make sense to pay ?31 for a carbon allowance when you can avoid emitting the carbon, and therefore avoid the need to buy the allowance, for ?30. Carbon reduction does impose costs, there's no getting away from that, but an auction and subsequent trading will ensure that the money is spent in the most efficient way, by those who can achieve most for it, and find its way from polluters to abaters.

It's true that the price this time round has been too low to make any difference. That's because too many allowances were given out first time round. Did you expect that in such an innovative, large scale scheme, everything would be got right first time? The price is higher for the second phase, because the European Commission has been much tougher in screwing down the total number of allowances, creating a genuine market shortage which should force real reductions by those who can most easily afford them, thus minimising the cost to the economy.

Some seem to think it's cheating to pay somebody else to reduce their carbon emissions rather than reducing one's own. It may offend one's puritan hair-shirt self-flagellating instincts, but the fact is that if I can reduce my emissions by 100 tonnes, but you can reduce yours by 200 tonnes for the same amount of money, then it makes more sense for me to give you the money.

By contrast, if we are both forced to reduce our emissions by 100 tonnes through some form of rationing or regulation, the result would still be 200 tonnes emissions reduction - but the cost would be greater, possibly forcing me out of business and my employees out of jobs while you have contributed less than you are fully capable of. The chances of demonstrating to other countries that carbon reductions can be achieved without inordinate economic pain would be less.

Certainly true also that some sectors who should be, aren't included in the EU ETS. That's again a question of the way this particular scheme was implemented, not a fundamental flaw in the concept of carbon trading. Politicians have to deal with what's politically feasible and the EU ETS is a start, not an end point. Negotiations will be beginning next year on the third phase and expansion of the scheme to cover other sectors, along with ways of screwing down the supply of allowances, either given out free or available for auction, so as to continue to create ever stronger commercial incentives to find the most cost-efficient ways of reducing carbon emissions.

It's not just materialistic greed and selfishness which makes it so important to focus on cost-efficiency. It is that the more we equate carbon reduction with economic hardship, the less likely we are to be able to encourage others to come with us in a global attempt to tackle a global problem. The whole point - the whole achievement - of Stern was to show that it can be done at reasonable cost. Those who insist that nothing will do short of economic ruin and the sacrifice of every aspect of modern life, are doing the fight against climate change no favours. They are merely driving the deniers further into denial, the ostriches further into the sand and encouraging the attitude - oh well, we've had it then, might as well enjoy it while we can because there's nothing we can do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jo



Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 184
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:35 pm    Post subject: You mention the "jobs" word at your peril... Reply with quote

@Keeper of the Flame,

Mate, which flame exactly are you keeping ? The ideological position that all environmental bads can be atoned for or righted by setting the right price ?

I wasn't going to answer you straight away, but then you mentioned the word "jobs". Instantly my hackles raised, and I began to bristle like a hissing cat.

Judging by the extremely lighthanded way you used the word "jobs", you appear to be too young to know the way that the word became strongly politicised a few decades ago.

The holy and sacrosanct word of "jobs" has been used to fortify and buttress extreme and unsound policy positions, and has been used very successfully as a trigger word, a weaselly, psychologically, culturally ingrained concept, that triggers strong feelings of altruism and self-protection in the British people.

Actually, most jobs are rubbish. The only reason people value them is because they are forced into indebtedness in a very costly corporatised social system. People feel that they will be left high and dry and at risk if they lose them. They fear waking up without one, dangling round their heads like a heavy chain, pulling them down into submission.

"Jobs", and that includes the widely, culturally, ridiculed non-jobs such as "McJobs", are a way to keep the populace too busy to revolt. Debt is encouraged to keep people begging for "jobs".

But I digress.

The issue here is that you use a myth, a non-argument, an urban legend, when you use the idea that Carbon Reductions will mean Loss of Employment.

That is absolutely not true.

In every global example of Low Carbon development, quality employment opportunities have appeared to support new infrastructure and social mechanisms - such as re-localisation of essential services - and the deployment of small to medium-scale renewable energies.

The more I look into decarbonisation, the more I am convinced that we need the twin policy of RE & ER - Renewable Energies and Energy Reduction - replacing Carbon Energy by using less energy overall, and by replacing Carbon sources with Renewable.

Less, Mr/s Keeper, is More.

People might earn less with Low Carbon "jobs", but they won't need to earn so much in a Low Carbon society - where construction, energy and food are highly localised and low maintenance.

Decarbonising implies demonetarising. And it's good for people to have to worry less about cashflow, to feel less responsible for slaving away to earn it.

On to other issues.

When you say "It's absolutely right that the carbon cost of a product should ultimately be passed to the consumer, because by including carbon costs in end products, you encourage consumption away from carbon-intensive and towards low-carbon products and processes."

I think this conflicts directly with your assumption that those at the top end of the Carbon chain will be compelled to decarbonise by having to pay for Carbon Rights by Auction.

If all the cost of Carbon can be passed down to the end consumer level, then the primary and secondary (main) producers will not care two hoots about how much they have to pay to emit, and they certainly will not be impelled to "innovate" Energy Efficiency.

Money cannot solve this problem. Emissions cannot be offset.

We must all use less Carbon Energy. Of course, you probably agree really. I'm sure you agree that China and India and America must all set a Carbon cap, eh ? We must all pull together on this. All of us must reduce our emissions.

When you say this : "Some seem to think it's cheating to pay somebody else to reduce their carbon emissions rather than reducing one's own. It may offend one's puritan hair-shirt self-flagellating instincts, but the fact is that if I can reduce my emissions by 100 tonnes, but you can reduce yours by 200 tonnes for the same amount of money, then it makes more sense for me to give you the money."

Are you accusing me of being a Puritan ? Nice. Actually, I'm a Proto- Quaker (not quite there yet). I'm not nice enough yet.

Anyway, I certainly do not self-flagellate, and I do not have those instincts either, to be honest. I have a very modern faith that includes the understanding that guilt and self-punishment are not helpful for my communion with the spirit.

The facts are these : if roughly 10 percent of the world's population effectively generate roughly 30 percent of the world's Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and globally we should reduce emissions by, say, 50%, then if the big emitters want to carry on burning, there will not be enough Carbon Credits that can be generated by the ROW - rest of the world.

Offsetting cannot work. Carbon Trading cannot help us with more than about 10% of the global Carbon Emissions reductions required.

Which means we're back at Square Uno - we all have to cut the use of Carbon Energy.

What you have omitted to figure, I believe, is this : Carbon Rationing can allow the MONEY systems to remain intact, by creating adjustments in BOTH the top and bottom ends of the Carbon Supply Chain (and at all points in between).

Please stop confusing money with Carbon value (anti-value).

Imagine I am a Carbon Energy supply company. With Carbon Rationing, I am permitted to carry on my trade, and allowed to trade up to a certain figure (which is reduced over time). My customers are permitted to carry on buying, up to a certain level (which is reduced over time).

I will increase costs in order to maintain profits - but I will be in competition with other traders - so the inflationary pressure will be lower (unless there is a strong cartel operation...bring me an Euro Lawyer).

But even if the cost of Carbon Energy rises, my customers will be using less, so they will not feel the sting.

The cost of Carbon Energy can be pretty similar after Rationing has been implemented, to the cost it has now.

Money systems always stabilise, but the Carbon Energy chain has to be drastically choked, so a trade system will never be the ultimate solution.

Using a Carbon Price is an inappropriate mechanism to implement a reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions - because CO2 is prevalent within the trade systems - it underpins every single business and trade transaction the world over.

The money systems will stabilise after the application of a Carbon Tax or a Carbon Trading system - and the Carbon Dioxide Emissions remain unchanged.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> TEQs All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group