Climate evidence is in.

[WoodDragon]

Its great how you have an opinion, what are you actually doing to help the "problem".

Bacon, I've taken huge steps to reduce my own carbon footprint, which I have discussed elsewhere - on the Global 'cooling' thread, if I'm not mistaken.

And as I said there, as a scientist my job is to make sure that people understand the science, and know how to pick it from pseudoscience. It is not my job to tell people just what they should do to address the problem, as that is a social and political decision that has to be made by society, not by science. All I can do is to say what will happen if humans do not stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Remember, in 2007 both Labor and the Coalition went to the election with a carbon pollution reduction scheme (the ETS), and the overwhelming majority of Australians were for putting a cap on emissions. The discussion has already been had. What happened after was that Tony Abbott - he of the "climate change is crap" opinion - sought (and succeeded by one vote in his cabinet) to overthrow the bipartisan agreed consensus on taking action on the ETS. Several Liberals have since admitted that had they known where Abbott was going with his agenda they would have voted for Turnbull, so the whole anti-carbon price program (and consequent confusion of the Australian public) that Abbott has spear-headed over the last few years really began with a small minority of ideologues.

Without this campaign of confusion there would have been bipartisan support for a price on carbon, and it would likely be Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberal Party who would have been bringing it in, right now.

The bottom line is that science says carbon emission has to be curtailed. How that is done - by regulation or by pricing its polluting cost - is not a responsibility of the scientific community. It's a responsibility of the whole of society, and if society is not prepared to wear the cost of its pollution then the division is there, and not with the scientists who are simply trying to point out the facts, and the pseudoscience that is being spread in order to muddy the waters.

For what it's worth, I am officially well below the poverty line. I am more than happy to pay the cost of a carbon tax - I'm gagging for it, in fact, even if I am not 'compensated' for being so poor. And I'd pay more still if it helped to further reduce overall Australian emissions. I can adjust, and it's worth doing it to begin a campaign that will help to avert serious consequences for the world in which my children will live.

Australia only has to reduce it's own share of total carbon emissions, and with fossil fuel emissions wearing their true cost, and with the tax that does this being diverted to developing alternatives, then soon other technologies would be sufficently competitive that we wouldn't even notice the cost.

Heck, my sister's family has had only solar hot water and photovoltaics for twelve years, and their complete cost for installation and maintenance over that time is less than the bills that my other sisters have, with the same sized families. And this is with 12 year-old technology, and compared to average Australian energy price now (before any carbon price). It doesn't have to hurt nearly as much as the scare campaigns are trying to make everyone believe. And if we'd gone about addresssing the problem a decade ago, as was tried to be done in the face of government resistance, we'd have our alternatives at a much further stage of advancement and they'd be even cheaper now than they are.

And the hysteria about job losses is just that - hysteria - as a report released today would seem to indicate. And as I have said before, any job losses can be very easily stopped at the nation's borders by putting a tariff on all imports, that taxes their embodied carbon at exactly the rate that we are taxing onshore carbon - this should make it unviable to export any jobs overseas, and thus simply have them transferred to using sustainable energy. There's the small issue of our free trade agreements, but again this is a political problem that was largely instigated by the US, who knew that the time would come when carbon must be priced, and they sought to give themselves an edge over other countries.

And make no mistake. Sooner or later even the most recalcitrant denialists will join the scientists and the majority of businesses and the rest of society in accepting that carbon emissions must be either priced; or simply strictly regulated, which will have the same end result. The longer it takes to reach this point the more it will end up costing, both in monetary terms, in real jobs-loss terms, and in environmental terms.

[Slybacon]

Thats great, but is understanding the science going to help. ( I can only skim your responce until later, Im at work)

You use money (tax) to push for an economic solution to your problem, but you can't tell me what I get for my investment. So again.

$$$$ (TAX) = REDUCTION OF CO2 OUTPUT = REDUCTION IN OVERALL GLOBAL TEMPS.

What is a dollar worth. You ask for an economic solution to tie our economies to our environmentr, but you can't give an economic answer. Someone will profit from this and It won't be the environment,

Australia only has to reduce it's own share of total carbon emissions, and with fossil fuel emissions wearing their true cost, and with the tax that does this being diverted to developing alternatives, then soon other technologies would be sufficently competitive that we wouldn't even notice the cost.

Pitty that isn't the case, and its give with one hand take with the other. Here in NSW at least the money is not going into renewables and coal fired technology will still see far more funding. Its all smoke show and mirrors, The tax is just political Manoeuvring . There is no intention to move into renewable technologies. How can you trust anything they say, now that they can break their own contracts, and people like you want to give them more power and take it away from the people. Solar is the peoples power and now it is dying.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Slybacon

[WoodDragon]

The Dude.

how many degrees celcius is my tax dollar worth?

Occidentalis has already responded well to your question, but I'll throw a little extra context into the mix.

To have a 50:50 chance of keeping global temperature rise to 2 C above the pre-Industrial temperature, we can emit no more than another half a trillion tons of carbon. If we want to reduce the risk of exceeding 2 to 25%, we can emit no more than 375 billion tons.

Australia's population today is 22,628,754. The global population is close enough to 6.97 billion that is doesn't make any difference. That means that we have 0.324659311% of the planet's population, to several ridiculous figures.

0.324659311% of half a trillion is 1.623 billion tons of carbon that Australians can equitably release to give a 50:50 chance of passing 2 C.

0.324659311% of 375 billion is 1.217 billion tons of carbon that Australians can equitably release to give a 25% chance of passing 2 C.

For argument's sake, let's presume that we have 32 million Australian lifetimes of emission left. At the 50:50 scenario, that gives each Australian the right to emit 380 tons more carbon. To put that into context, we're currently emitting about 18 tones carbon dioxide each, per year, which works out to about 5 tons of carbon. That's 77 years' worth of emissions per person at our current average annual rate. And remember, this is predicated on the assumption (amongst many other simplifications) that there are a total of 32 million Australian lifetimes consuming that carbon - change that number, and the other numbers change too.

So, what value is that amount of energy and pollution worth to you?

Edited June 6, 2011 by WoodDragon

[WoodDragon]

What is a dollar worth. You ask for an economic solution to tie our economies to our environmentr, but you can't give an economic answer.

Bacon, I'm not personally asking for an economic solution. I'm happy to accept one, but I'd be just as happy with a regulation solution. There really are no alternatives to these two options, and as we keep rattling on about how we're all good capitalists and free-marketeers, the economic solution should appeal to Australians.

I am a scientist so I don't attempt, nor do I pretend, to have "economic answers". As I have said many times now, that's not the job of science or of scientists, that's a job for economists like Stern and Garnaut, and for politicians, and for society in general.

You're still trying to shoot the messenger.

[Slybacon]

So, what value is that amount of energy and pollution worth to you?

Im not sure, because no one has told me what my Dollar is worth in relative terms to temprature redution.

So we have acertained that there is 77 years worth of emmissions untill we warm our planet by 2 degrees celcius?

What amount of Tax will drop this emission, to come up with a figure of

For every $1 AUD spent on a carbon Tax = XYZ Tonnes of CO2 = Temrature Decrease of XYZ over how many years.

Why not try and empower people to make a desicion to become self sustainable for self empowering reasons, not some fantasy about global warming. Facebook alone is said to be worth $50 Billion? so go figure.

[Slybacon]

I am a scientist so I don't attempt, nor do I pretend, to have "economic answers". As I have said many times now, that's not the job of science or of scientists, that's a job for economists like Stern and Garnaut, and for politicians, and for society in general.

 

They are using your Hard Work to gain more power. The Environment is just the emotional trigger to force the majority opinion.

[WoodDragon]

On the matter of taxes not working as they perhaps should, this is a matter of political interference by coroporate vested interests.

If this happens, it is a matter of the type of politicians that Australians keep voting for, and the business practices that we as a society have allowed to occur - again, usually through the actions of the politicians that we elect.

It's time that Australians start to take responsibility as a society for the people whom we choose to govern us. If you like the blokes and women who offer you tax cuts and bonuses and whatever with one hand, and organise lurks and perks for their big corporate buddies and international mates on the other, then you're responsible for the current state of play.

Wingeing at the people who are telling you that it's all heading to poo isn't the answer - the answer is for every Australian to start taking responsibility themselves for the state of the country. And that involves being a bit more discerning in what you expect in, and accept from, the people you put in government.

[WoodDragon]

They are using your Hard Work to gain more power. The Environment is just the emotional trigger to force the majority opinion.

Bro, with respect to most of the Australian politicians today, I totally agree with you.

So what do we do about it?

[Slybacon]

Bro, with respect to most of the Australian politicians today, I totally agree with you.

So what do we do about it?

 

http://anarchy.org.au/?p=7

What anarcho-syndicalists are seeking is a basis for taking action with other anarchists to bring about what we want -- an anarchist society. Anarchism is a body of ideas -- a theory of a possible social organisation. Anarcho-syndicalism provides a method for achieving anarchy, and a way in which it is possible to practice anarchy along the way, in the present. Through organisation, federation, assemblies, and delegation we can practice anarchist decision making and collective action. This what we want and this is why we are anarcho-syndicalists.

But we need people like your who are very articulate.

[hutch]

http://anarchy.org.au/?p=7

What anarcho-syndicalists are seeking is a basis for taking action with other anarchists to bring about what we want -- an anarchist society. Anarchism is a body of ideas -- a theory of a possible social organisation. Anarcho-syndicalism provides a method for achieving anarchy, and a way in which it is possible to practice anarchy along the way, in the present. Through organisation, federation, assemblies, and delegation we can practice anarchist decision making and collective action. This what we want and this is why we are anarcho-syndicalists.

But we need people like your who are very articulate.

 

Tick.....

[occidentalis]

For every $1 AUD spent on a carbon Tax = XYZ Tonnes of CO2 = Temrature Decrease of XYZ over how many years.

 

Although I think I explained pretty clearly the concept that a carbon tax is more about long term structural change rather than merely reducing emissions, it can actually be reduced to arithmetic as you have asked for. In fact, that's what the current political debate regarding the price of carbon is about. How much is it actually worth? Business groups have finally conceded that it would be acceptable, but they say it should be worth very little ($10 per ton) while green economists say that to achieve a genuine reduction in emissions, it needs to be something like $45/ton. No doubt it will end up somewhere in the middle but hopefully closer to the higher end, as $10 per tonne could possibly do more harm than good.

I guess WoodDragon has the figures or could come up with them to specify how many tons of carbon emissions those prices will actually prevent; and what contribution those amounts would make to overall climate change (no doubt within a large margin of error, as all of these predictions are probabilistic).

The other way to do it (which is proposed to come into effect down the track in Aus) is the emissions trading scheme. In an ETS, the total amount of GHG that can be emitted is limited, and industries are given or auctioned credits to pollute. They can then trade the credits at a price set by the market. Every year, the government can remove some permits from the market; so they become more valuable, and only businesses that are obtaining the maximum economic value from their emissions can afford to continue emitting.

Edited June 6, 2011 by occidentalis

[Slybacon]

^^^^ Thanks.

Where do you think the Tax Dollars will end up?

[dundee]

^^^^ Thanks.

Where do you think the Tax Dollars will end up?

 

probably uncle sams back pocket

[WoodDragon]

Occidentalis.

I guess WoodDragon has the figures or could come up with them to specify how many tons of carbon emissions those prices will actually prevent...

When it comes to pricing and behaviour change, that's way beyond what I have any experience in. That's definitely heavy economics territory - but it's why I posed the question as to what each ton of carbon (and specifically its embodied energy and pollution) might be worth to an Australian.

It's a fundamental question, but difficult one to answer.

...and what contribution those amounts would make to overall climate change (no doubt within a large margin of error, as all of these predictions are probabilistic).

The eventual amounts themselves are probabilistic, and fraught with the necessity to include future global reductions as well. Still, Australia is responsible for 1.5% of all emissions, so we need to address the reduction of our 1.5% share.

Bacon.

Where do you think the Tax Dollars will end up?

I hope they end up where they are needed - helping the poorest people in our society to cope with the increased cost of fossil energy, and helping to quickly bring non-fossil energy to a competitive and affordable market, so that in future a carbon tax is irrelevant or insignificant.

I certainly don't want it to go to the pockets of the executives and shareholders of companies who profit directly from fossil energy, and who already get huge taxpayer subsidies as it is, in spite of their already massive profits. And I would be really put out if the tax dollars themselves went into the pockets of speculative traders...

Whilst many would disagree with the Greens' ideas on the dollar value per ton of carbon, they do have the better models for distributing the tax, conmpared to the two major parties. It's probably why the Labor and Liberal parties, and the big mining/oil conpanies, hate them so much - there's much less room in a Greens model for the top end of town to dip their fingers into the till.

[Slybacon]

When the current Government cant even honour the contracts it has made (Retrospective Legislation). How can you trust they will spend the Tax where they say they will. Its just Lie after Lie, and the Greens legislation or any legislation will not be worth the paper it is written on.

You can't give them any more power, they will abuse it. The greens are already bastardising the word green, just like the united nations bastardised the word peace. Be very very careful what you give power too. They will use your emotion and enthusiasm to their political agenda. Empower people to make their own desicions and live outside of their system. You have the skills WD to do this.

 

 

Thanx Blowng ^^^^

Edited June 6, 2011 by Slybacon

[Slybacon]

I think it would be good to pin a climate change thread somewhere and merge them all. Saves covering the same topics as I knew this would take off again.

[occidentalis]

When the current Government cant even honour the contracts it has made (Retrospective Legislation). How can you trust they will spend the Tax where they say they will. Its just Lie after Lie, and the Greens legislation or any legislation will not be worth the paper it is written on.

 

For what it's worth, I agree with your cynicism, but in this case I don't think it matters. It's just not that important how the money from the tax is spent - as long as it's not given back to compensate the polluters. The purpose of the tax is to make certain things more expensive. What happens to the money after that doesn't matter. Ideally it should be given to the poorest members of society to compensate for increased cost of living - but that's a detail of the policy settings that come with the tax, rather than a factor influencing the effect of the tax per se.

When it comes to pricing and behaviour change, that's way beyond what I have any experience in. That's definitely heavy economics territory - but it's why I posed the question as to what each ton of carbon (and specifically its embodied energy and pollution) might be worth to an Australian.

Yeah, I thought you might say that. Because you are following the issue more closely than I am I wondered if you might have read or heard of the references that the Greens are basing their figures on. I guess I'll have to go look it up myself now... ;)

Edited June 6, 2011 by occidentalis

[WoodDragon]

I wondered if you might have read or heard of the references that the Greens are basing their figures on.

Gee, that's a big question!

I suspect that it depends on the nature of the policies in question, but most of the figures would come from the relevant disciplines or work.

Although I'm not privy to the internal machinations of the Greens, I do know that they both consult professionals in the various fields, and review the associated literature. If their model of policy derivation is similar to that of many NGOs, there'd be a summary of the material prepared for policy meetings, and then policies are shaped by some sort of process of consensus. But as to the 'figures' themselves, they'd be the state of the art of whatever field it is that they're considering.

That's not to say that they necessarily always arrive at the best policies, but that's a discussion for a completely different forum, let alone this thread.

The best way to find out for sure though would simply be to email them. When I've contacted each of the political parties on policy matters, the Greens have always been the quickest to respond, and the ones to provide the most detailed answers. Sometimes they don't even use pro formas, as the Liberal and the Labor parties do...

[Slybacon]

Can Individualism Actually Benefit The Environment?

In·di·vid·u·al·ism: Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence; 2. a) A doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person's economic goals; A doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state or social group. (Source)

Eric Blair

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/can-in...ly-benefit.html

I'm an extreme Individualist for demanding personal freedom and property rights. But I'm also sympathetic to the suffering of my fellow humans and I'm very concerned about the state of the environment. Consequently, the current matrix would pit me against two separate philosophies: the collective good versus individual freedom. Unfortunately, because of this divide, there's not much discussion about whether what's good for the individual may also be better for the whole of humanity.

Many environmentalists argue that Individualism, if ever allowed to prevail, will lead to environmental destruction and the corporate takeover of the planet. But, I say look around, hasn't our collectivized system resulted in just that? Our environment is being devastated despite an obese EPA and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), while the natural result of collectivism is more corporate-state consolidation, or centralization -- which we are clearly experiencing. So, during a time of stunning centralization, vastly devoid of Individualism in its purest sense, the environment declines more rapidly than ever; yet environmentalists continue suggest more collectivized "solutions".

In essence, since the ideology of Individualism does not have any genuine influence over the current system, it holds no responsibility for current Too-Big-to-Fail-driven economic collapse, wars for no other reason than imperial consolidation, corporate environmental destruction, the starving of half the world, or a host of other problems that the good-hearted environmentalists say "could" occur under a system of Individualism.

I will leave it to others far more scholarly than myself to debate the ramifications of Collectivism versus Individualism on the economy, poverty, and wars. My bet is that pure free-market Individualism couldn't possibly be worse than the current system's deprivations. The purpose of this essay is to explore if Individualism may actually be better for the environment than the current collectivized system -- as that seems to be one of the most passionate arguments against Individualism.

Some in the environmental movement have been conditioned to worship the greater good over the individual, leading many to spew venom for their fellow man, especially if that man is a "selfish" Individualist. I admit it; I'm selfish. I'm selfish for wanting clean air, water, and food for me and my loved ones. In fact, I demand those things for all of my human tribe. But, at this point, who could trust the centralized establishment to provide or protect these for us? Certainly not with more silly regulations like banning light bulbs and taxing pets because they exhale CO2.

The gospel that "global problems require global solutions" seems blatantly false in terms of clean air, water, and food. The mantra has recently surfaced as a propaganda slogan for a centralized scheme to combat the global warming theory. But the fact remains that most environmental problems in terms of provable poisons occur locally and, therefore, they're best handled with local action.

It seems appropriate to explore just what a society based on Individualism may look like in our modern age. The concept is described by modern proponents as something like non-coercive anarchy, or a system with very limited local government whose primary purpose is to protect individual liberty, private property, and prosecute violent crime. Violators to those three principles will be dealt with by a court system of peers, not with preemptive regulation imposed by a Federal force.

Naturally, respecting principles of limited government absolves the need for increasing regulation and taxes, resulting in a purer free-market economic system. In such a system, individual freedom reigns supreme, but not to the point where someone has the right to damage the personal property of another, including damaging their body. But all victimless, non-violent crimes will be scrapped from the books under Individualism.

With respect to the environment, questions immediately arise concerning the limitations of property rights under Individualism. The usual argument begins with the question: Should a property owner have the freedom to dump toxins in a river that runs through his land, but ultimately affects his neighbor's property? The answer is: Of course not, because the toxin dumper is violating his neighbor's property rights who is indeed a "victim".

The current system allows for large corporations to buy and appeal their way out of deliberate pollution. Under a system with extreme property rights, those corporations would face criminal charges in addition to providing monetary compensation to their victims. Incidentally, industrial farming practices, for example, would be criminally liable if they didn't stop violating property rights by run-off pollution. This, an Individualist would argue, is a powerful deterrent to large-scale pollution.

Let's take it a step further. Individualism allows for people to make their own decisions in regards to what they consume, even if it could be damaging. However, one cannot knowingly poison another without their consent, because that would harm personal property. In other words, we should be allowed to consume any and all harmful products so long as the consumer is not deceived about the effects of that product. Case in point: we know the harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and greasy foods, but we are allowed to consume them. In turn, we don't know the harmful effects of GMO foods because our collectivized FDA withholds any warnings. Therefore, if Monsanto and the FDA are "knowingly" harming individuals with GMOs without consent, they should be criminally punished.

Additionally, because of massive consolidation in the food industry, pesticide-soaked GMOs are said to make up 70% of the average American diet, which brings up another important point that Individualism promotes: competition. The current culture of putting the "common good" above the individual has allowed regulatory commissions to gain unprecedented power. In terms of food and drugs, the FDA is anything but an agency for the common good, or the individual for that matter. Under the guise of keeping us safe, regulations have systematically increased the barriers of entry for alternatives to Big Ag or Big Pharma. Thus, they actually force us to take their approved poisons, while using SWAT teams to raid raw milk dairies and herbal medicine providers.

What good is the freedom to make choices when a handful of international companies control much of the market and are deceptive about their products? Under a free-market system, there would be no barriers for alternative choices like small-scale organic farms, or medical marijuana; and the best and healthiest options will likely rise to the top because of their effectiveness. And if our raw milk provider sold us rotten milk, so we have diarrhea for a day and buy from his competitor the next time. There's no reason to raid his farm with armed Federal agents, as the free market will force him to clean up his operation or he'll go out of business. Even an all-powerful collective cannot prevent us from getting diarrhea from time to time despite their futile efforts to keep us safe.

Finally, the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence that define Individualism will indeed lead to smaller individual environmental footprints. Jeffrey Green outlined the reasons this would occur in the article Why 'Self-Sufficiency' Should Replace 'Sustainability' in the Environmental Movement. Conclusively, when an individual strives for clean energy independence and local food self-reliance, they will naturally reduce their impact on the environment. And, significantly, this form of independent empowerment and self-reliance can be extended beyond the individual to neighborhoods, towns, and even counties; but through voluntarism spurred by merit, not brute force dictated by a central authority. In addition, localities that embrace the concept of self-reliance and independence will be much more capable of adapting to large-scale environmental problems.

In conclusion, the irony is that every environmentalist in America is funding their own poisoning through taxes to the collective for oil and farm subsidies, nuclear power, corporate-run regulatory agencies, and with programs like public water fluoridation. All in the name of the "greater good". Moving forward pretending that a global tax-subsidy-regulation program is the end-all "solution" for environmental concerns no longer seems to be viable given the evidence of collective actions. Perhaps it's time that we all become a little more selfish in demanding clean air, water, and food and the liberty to make informed choices. Our ecosystem's survival depends on it.

[synchromesh]

For what it's worth, I agree with your cynicism, but in this case I don't think it matters. It's just not that important how the money from the tax is spent - as long as it's not given back to compensate the polluters. The purpose of the tax is to make certain things more expensive. What happens to the money after that doesn't matter. Ideally it should be given to the poorest members of society to compensate for increased cost of living - but that's a detail of the policy settings that come with the tax, rather than a factor influencing the effect of the tax per se.

 

You need alternatives though. (HEMP, etc) Otherwise you're just stealing people's money.