Climate Report to Warn Time Running Out in Greenhouse Gas Battle
Climate Report to Warn Time Running Out in Greenhouse Gas Battle
Time is running out to cut the greenhouse-gas emissions that drive climate change, but much can be done at a modest cost to attack the looming crisis, according to experts gathering for new talks.Fierce debate is expected however at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting which starts in Bangkok on Monday to hammer out a new all important summary for governments.
A draft of the report to be agreed by experts on the United Nation's main authority on climate change says there is scant time to waste.
"Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will determine to a large extent the long-term global mean temperature increase and the corresponding climate change impacts that can be avoided," says the draft which has been seen by AFP.
Using a smart mix of policies and technologies, the cost of stabilizing carbon pollution at nearly 75 percent above today's levels would be just 0.2 percent of world gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030.
That price would rise to 0.6 percent of global GDP if the world stabilized carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at a level roughly 50 percent higher than today, they calculate.
The sticking points expected at the debate include emissions caps, taxes on CO2 emissions and references to the Kyoto Protocol -- an approach that is anathema to President George W. Bush.
There could also be squabbles over nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels and over carbon storage, a nascent technology for storing greenhouse gases deep underground.
The report to be released on Friday is the last in a massive three-volume update of knowledge on climate change, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists.
But those close to the meeting fear the final document could be watered down by political pressure.
"The economists are too sharply divided," said one expert from an international agency, predicting the European Union (EU) would lock horns with the United States and China over a range of issues.
The EU has set a goal of reducing its CO2 output by 20 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, while the United States and China, the world's biggest carbon polluters, fear the cost to their economies of such ambitious goals.
The IPCC report identifies policies, technologies and measures that would slow or eventually stop global warming.
Among the options are more efficient use of fossil fuels in construction, industry and transport; economic or fiscal mechanisms to spur renewable energies such as wind, solar and geothermal; and incentives for forestry and farming, which together account for more than 30 percent of total greenhouse gases.
Large reductions in CO2 emissions could also be achieved through creating tougher standards for buildings, motor vehicles and all electricity-consuming appliances, the report says.
Essential for all measures, however, is setting a "carbon price," in other words, handing on pollution costs to producers and consumers. That would be a powerful carrot for energy efficiency and low-carbon technology.
To give an example, carbon prices of 20-50 dollars per tonne of CO2 equivalent, if sustained or increased over decades, could "decarbonize" the energy industry, says the report.
The higher the price, the greater the potential for reducing emissions, it adds. If CO2 is priced at 20 dollars per tonne, emissions of between nine and 18 billion tonnes per year could be removed; at 100 dollars per tonne, the carbon cleanup jumps to 16-30 billion tonnes.
But what is best for the environment can conflict with a healthy economy, for oil, gas and coal are likely to remain the mainspring of the world's energy supply for several decades, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Economists argue that too high and fast a rise in the carbon price would send fossil-fuel dependent economies into a tailspin.
The first volume of the IPCC report, issued in February, predicted that average world temperatures would rise by between 1.8 to 4.0 C (3.2 to 7.2 F) within a wider range of 1.1-6.4 C (2.0-11.5 F).
The second, released on April 6, warned of severe consequences, including drought, flooding, violent storms, as well as increased hunger and disease.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse
48 Comments so far
Show AllThere is something terribly illogical about the fourth and fifth paragraphs of ths article. The author talks about stabilizing carbon polution at 75% ABOVE today's levels (fourth paragraph) and 50% ABOVE today's levels (fifth paragraph), and it would cost three times as much to stablize at 50% ABOVE than 75% ABOVE.
I believe the author meant to say OF instead of ABOVE. I doubt that we are stiving to stabilize carbon polution at 75% or 50% ABOVE today's levels. If we substitute the word OF for ABOVE, then the cost relationship between 75% and 50% makes sense.
The spent fuel rods truly are a dilemma. I don't know which is worse: dumping them on the ground or using your depleted uranium as canon shells for anti-tank weapons in Iraq. Technocracy has some pretty hellish nightmares in store for us.
By the way...
Just because "scientists say xyz" does not make "xyz" true. According to the universal scientific method of controlled experimentation that has been around for two hundred years, only repeatable controlled experiments that demonstrate, without any simpler explanation, that "xyz" is true makes "xyz" good science.
There's a tendency in this blog for people to say things like "the science is settled" while offering no scientific discussion for their science. That's not how science works. As I've pointed out elsewhere, scientists are accepting the 9/11 Commission as science, not because Keane knows anything about the scientific method, but because most scientists are subsidized by government funding and don't want to risk their careers arguing science with a bunch of oily politicians who are corrupt enough to send other people's kids to permanently occupy another defenseless country.
If you want to argue science, then let's argue the science. But don't be coy and say things like "the science in the matter is pretty much settled" and then skip away.
As for the economics, is it also "settled" that capitalism is inherently more threatening to the environment than centrally planned economies? Is China really all that green! Check out Shanghai for the answer. It would seem the global Techno-Industrial civilization, in general, is the threat...however it is structured. On every side of the ideological divide we all serve Technocracy today, in one form or another.
In 1972-73, everybody was talking about Watergate; meanwhile the oil crisis was brewing. But nobody noticed until it was too late.
In 1980 everybody was talking about the Iran Hostage Crisis; meanwhile the Iran-Contra affair was brewing. But nobody noticed until it was too late.
In the 90s everybody was talking about the screaming stock market; meawhile the feds were laying the groundwork for the de-industrialization of America. But nobody noticed until it was too late.
Now everybody is talking about a new pollutant called "carbon dioxide" and how it will affect future generations; meanwhile Big Biotech is working a genetic re-engineering of homo sapiens that will make future generations of homo sapiens obsolete. But nobody...
...too late.
Just who determines what everybody is talking about, anyway?
Checking out for the moment. Best to all.
That is assuming the "select few" exist, which I must say, I'm inclined to not believe.....
So that I defend my position let me say: To whom does the land belong? The select few. I say not, and if tranportation needs to cross many lands then it should belong to all. It is in our interest. Everyone's interest. Even the select few's interest.
buffalo_ken
So that I'm clear let me say: We each should share equally of the railroad's proceeds. We will all then have a vested interest. Not just the "select few".
buffalo_ken
Communitarian,
Exactly. That is why the railroads should be owned by the people automatically. And then we each should a portion of any proceeds that the railroads make - equally. 1830 was a real turning point. We know that now, so lets do something about it.
buffalo_ken
buffalo_ken,
Capitalism failed when the robber barons took over, and with a few ups and downs, they've been in control ever since.
MtnGoat,
I agree, but impeaching wacko Amadidijad is up to the Iranian people, while Bush's madness is up to you, me and the American people.
"Capitalism or communism aren't the problems in my view. Even in their extreme forms, the people are always ahead of their leaders. When the people make mistakes like electing (or selecting) Hitler, Stalin or Bush, they are quick to change their minds, though it may be too late to respond democratically."
Huh?
Why don't we all go read some Adam Smith. It ain't what the "capitalist-lovers" say.
buffalo_ken
"It is really about Capitalism hitting the wall, isn't that true!?"
"The world capitalist system will not and in fact is unable to properly respond to global warming and the crisis that will result. The only way to save this planet is to get rid of the capitalist economic system."
Capitalism or communism aren't the problems in my view. Even in their extreme forms, the people are always ahead of their leaders. When the people make mistakes like electing (or selecting) Hitler, Stalin or Bush, they are quick to change their minds, though it may be too late to respond democratically.
What almost all forms of government have in common is powerful political leaders that sooner or later become drunk with money-power. Governments are formed with the best of democratic intentions but eventually become right wing, left wing, theocracy or other dictatorship. Government leaders succumb to bribes, threats or the need to stay in power. The question is, in this age of information and instant communications, do we need paid professional politicians to do their thinking for us? To lead us into costly disasters? To lie, steal and work for bribes?
Presidential candidate Mike Gravel is running with the direct democratic solution that will end the reign of Mammon for good. Read about it here and click on National Initiative for Democracy: http://www.gravel2008.us/
MtnGoat - I will add. Don't let your blood pressure get too high.
Enough of this conversation.
buffalo_ken
MtnGoat: I agree with most of what you say. Can we ever really know about human nature? Isn't constantly changing into something different? How can it not be? Perhaps it is not "new", but "new things" are happening. All the time.
buffalo_ken
Moreover, I'm not sure I care about "writings" -- some of them maybe, but I care more about what is going to happen next. Frankly, nor do I care the much about "Right" and "Left" -- right and left ought to be objective.
The corporate rape of the Earth is nearly complete, but Bush will not be satisfied until he achieves his biblical Armageddon (World War Three). We had better impeach him and Cheney now, while there is still time.
I will tell you what is different now. The unprecedented ecological uncertainty that is before us. Not just for humanity mind you, but no, for much more. Life in general will continue, but many species (forms if you prefer) are threatened.
Think about it mountain goat.
MtnGoat, I think it is OK because a NEW generation is on the way. But this is just my opinion.
buffalo_ken
MtnGoat: We'll see won't we!
Imagine the planet earth without the presence of human beings.
Look at our recorded history, when are we going to realize that we are a plague and nothing more on the planet earth. There is nothing whatsoever noble or good about us.
I for one would pull the plug in a minuet to eradicate this human pestilence and let those life forms that deserve to live here live in peace.
MtnGoat - I agree, the truth will be somewhere in the middle.
shakker - screw the money - money is nothing, BUT the PEOPLE that is something else.
Hey People, this solar contest idea is a good one for everyone. Isn't this website "commonDREAMS"?
Quit worrying about global warming, Iraq war, voting and all that boring stuff. Money is speech, besides if you want to vote American Idol is on.
The sad part is the ones powerful enough to make changes don't care about the 1/3 to 1/2 of the world too poor to do anything about it.
expatincebu wrote:
"Will human extinction be a bad thing?"
This now-common common pessisimistic sentiment was unheard of prior to the nuclear weapons age. Einstein used it as a starting point in his essay "Why Socialism" here:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm
The idea that transition to low carbon emissions would ruin the economy is utter nonsense. Is the application of 500-600 billion dollars to military hardware and to megatons of paper, produced by useless beltway-bandit consultants, ruining the US economy? Sadly, it has quite the opposite effect - the economy of whole regions, like the DC area, tidewater Virginia, and San Diego rely on the defense industry.
So, if the military-industrial complex was coverted to a renewable energy/energy efficiency-industrial complex, how would it not help the economy?
Hey,
Here is an idea. Lets have a solar contest -- it could be covered sort of like a reality show -- who can come up with the best solar design for use in their home area/community? How would it be used? Would it last and be easy to maintain?
I bet you there are some people (individual and groups of) who can come up with some great designs that would really be useful.
I think the contest should be voluntary and I'm not sure if there should be any sort of incentive -- I mean the incentive is to come up with the useful design, and if you have, people in your area/community will probably be interested in acquiring what you have to offer. Seems like this should be incentive enough.
Anyhow, just an idea.....
This administration has redefined science to match its politics and its religion. Science, when passed through a sieve of dogma, ceases to be science.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has listed a whole set of abuses.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/specific-examples-of-the-abuse-of-science.html?print=t
The above list is not even up to date. Check the home page for others.
Climate change is real. We are mostly to blame for it. The other theories that are brought forward are mainly because of disinformation and politics.
We will probably not change. At some point, people will realize the problem exists. At the time, it will simply be to late.
As soon as the world recognizes that Al Gore and his AIT is a humbug we will have made a start on grasping some reality in the global climate discussion. Anyone who has obtained their environmental information from AIT has been sadly misled by scene after scene of irrelevant, misleading, or deceptive pictures and accompanying words. There is no solid evidence that carbon dioxide is the cause of the mild warming that we have experienced (about 1°C since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age). Calls for carbon taxes and caps are unrealistic and will do nothing but add costs to consumers. (Companies do not pay these costs!!!.) If all carbon emissions were stopped instantly, the temperature difference 50 and 100 years into the future would scarcely be measurable. Will someone tell me why we in Western societies (I am in Canada) are flagellating ourselves over something that is most likely out of our hands and beyond our control? Carbon taxes are the modern equivalent of an altar built to appease the local rain god or volcano god.
Humanity is pushing up against the edge of the petri dish, soon this will be all a memory and the experiment in opposable thumbs will be over, it failed. Besides if all cars and trucks, trains, ships were stopped tomorrow there would still be years of increase already built in. Nope it is over with, so get used to the idea, and enjoy your new lifestyle. It ain't gonna be pretty.
Com_n_sense: Listen, if you really do have common sense, then I'd encourage you not to be so fatalistic. It seems like many here are. Why? What does it accomplish? How does it make you feel better? I honestly don't understand. Obviously we can't be naive, but being realistic is NOT the same as being fatalistic. I haven't picked your option #2 and I'm presuming neither have you. Tell me if I'm wrong.
The way it seems to me, it does not have to be as dreadful as you think. In the biology of life change often happens slowly and incrementally but it can also happen in the "blink of an eye". You know what I mean?
Would any of us be here reading these articles putting forth our opinions and making an effort if we had no hope that things could be better. I don't think so, and so I choose to do whatever I can to be life-affirming. This includes being aware of the ecosystem I live in and doing my best to learn how to fit in gracefully.
Well I think I've been talking too much lately. I suppose it is time for me to sit back.
Peace to all,
Ken
Ken Hausle Yes, I know Ken that what you say is true. But there are some countries truly committed to halting the destruction. Here in the US, some states are also taking matters into their own hands and ignoring the Federal Government. What's sad is that the Fed's are trying to block any initiatives some states have begun to protect the environment.
It will be a long battle that will have to start from the local level and work its way up to the Federal level. When enough people and States yell long enough and loud enough, perhaps then the Feds will begin to do the right thing. Only problem is: we are running out of time and the problems are increasing exponentially, rather than a steady and straight increase.
psilver58 4:47 pm: "We are in danger of seeing science become entirely politicized."
I think the science in the matter is pretty much settled. What has really been "politicized" is the economic analysis that finds there will be a large price to pay for countering C02 emissions.
The economic assumptions of the global warming deniers deserve every bit as much scrutiny as the science of global warming receives.
Realists know this.
We are running out of natural resources at the same time we are suffering from population explosion and dramatic loss in habitation.
There were two ways to work with this inevitability.
1) The world in a spirit of sharing to avoid conflict would work out a plan to share diminished resources and at the same time find solutions to both controlling population and alternative sources of energy.
2) Or do what we've always done. Seek out what we needed and crush with the use of deceit and brutal force any and all that would get in our way not really caring that the consequences of our actions would seal the world to a horribly, miserable fate.
We picked #2 - again. I've never been a big fan of mankind.
So, we've blown it. We crawled out of the cave and never let go of the club and we wound up beating ourselves to death with it.
It's why I drink and spit on SUV's.
In speaking of a "win-win" situation hybidoma2001 says: "the only ones against such an approach are those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo while washing their hands of their present actions and the future." How true, but dad gonnit, these are the same ones who are "running the empire", and fouling the planet for the rest of us. I'm tired of it.
At this moment, the question is: How can WE the PEOPLE reclaim our communities and our fate and return to a balanced, life-affirming way of living? I think it has to do with re-connecting with our place and how we fit in with the many amazing, awesome & wonderful ecosystems around, about & throughout this incredible planet of life. Of course, life will continue, but I want humanity to be part of it all. Don't you?
Per David Korten's excellent book, "The Great Turning", it is high time for an "Earth Community" to replace "empire" because just as this article says -- time is running out.
I think the world's remaining "superpower" (whatever that term means) must take a leadership position in finding solutions. If the US doesn't do this, then the future is even more murky than it already is. Whatever we can do to facilitate this we ought to -- an excellent first step would be to rally support for HR 333 (Impeachment Resolution). Not only could this be a strike against empire, but it will also send a signal to people in the rest of the world that as a country the people of the US recognize that we want to get "back on track" so to speak.
Peace,
Ken
I thought that was an interesting polemic from psilver. Shame all the science in it was wrong, ruins the thread somewhat.
And claiming not to be a 'conspiracy theorist' whilst also claiming that the oil industry would lie about climate change to join the 'elite globalist powerbrokers', to me strikes a discordant note.
Here in a few days the world's largest consumer/polluters will pay their rent and mortgage checks. For the majority of them there is no viable option but to keep polluting the way they are now. By polluting I mean dumping CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of their daily activities.
The solutions are viable NOW!! Energy waste can be cut from most of our usage sectors. Housing heating/cooling/lighting are all within the power requirements of a rooftop solar system if efficiency modifications are done to most buildings. http://tinyurl.com/3atbl2
Solar thermal systems are being installed in the California desert. http://tinyurl.com/35flxx
and everywhere else....
http://www.solarpaces.org/publications/sp99_tec.htm
http://www.infiniacorp.com/main.htm
http://www.sunmachine.de/english/main.html (this one is also available as a cogeneration wood-pellet fired system)
Geothermal Power can fill in the gaps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
Transportation can be provided by trains and monorail at a fraction of the energy cost of automobiles, trucking and air transit.
http://www.monorails.org/ Everbody who's been to Disneyland has ridden a monorail; they work and can be installed at a fraction of the cost of light rail.
The biggest problem is that any of these solutions will take profits away from those that have become used to accepting them. As a result there are no financial vehicles to allow people to even make the changes that would have a positive cash flow.
The largets opposition to improving the Climate Change situation is the US Congress. These idiots are happily trying to save the "happy motoring utopia" at all costs including the starvation of others so that we can feed corn ethanol into gas tanks of SUV's.
As near as I can tell Climate Change deniers are the same group that buys lottery tickets expecting to pay their rent with the winnings. They believe the happy talk and neglect math and science.
The rent's due on your planet fool; pay up.
No matter what the cause is of the current rise in overall global temperature and climactic changes, there is one thing that nobody can deny: we live on a finite surface area with finite resources. I also think that everyone would agree that breathing clean air and dinking clean water is preferable to contaminated air and water. What this all boils down too is: do we want to continue to treat our Earth as one huge garbage can or do we want to live in a cleaner world?
If we could get all the governments to agree on this very sensible reality, then the governments can force the corporations to change their ways. I don't know how many people are aware of the Apollo Alliance. As they lay out their vision to attacking the core issue of pollution, they indicate that embracing such an approach toward mitigating the damage humankind has done to this planet would create many jobs and new technologies. It's a win – win situation and the only ones against such an approach are those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo while washing their hands of their present actions and the future.
The world capitalist system will not and in fact is unable to properly respond to global warming and the crisis that will result. The only way to save this planet is to get rid of the capitalist economic system.
"The whole idea that C02 is 'trapping' heat inside some earth 'greenhouse' is still rather hypothetical."
Um, no.
Just so long as this does not get in the way of our being to continue to grow our economy ad infinitum--the unifying dogma to which we all a subscribe.
Connecting the dots:From human behaviors to ecosystem decline
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org
It is really about Capitalism hitting the wall, isn't that true!?
Will human extinction be a bad thing?
"But there are reports that indicate that, historically, CO2 levels increase some 800 years following a global warming trend, not preceding." psilver58 repeats the latest mantra from the deniers. Historically this is quite true. And should give everyone cause for great alarm. In the complex system of climate and well developed science of atmosphere radiative forcing, the CO2 component of the system normally seems to act like a positive feedback lever, magnifying the temperature effects of all other influences. As a result, temperature changes caused by other components can be 4-5x what they would have been without the CO2 rise. Only now are we foolish enough keep pushing the CO2 accelerator ourselves, way past the levels seen far back in the past. On current policies, CO2 and temperatures will rise until enough humans have died to reduce the rate of CO2 production. If we're lucky. How lucky do you feel? No Global conspiracy is required.
One of my best friends is a nature guide who knows the names of exotic plants, birds, etc and has taken people into (once) pristine sanctuaries for 30 years. He believes that global warming is the result of many things, a great many natural systems are close to collapse on account of NUMEROUS factors, like deforestation, over-fishing, and of course, fossil fuels. Discovery channel had a program not long ago about the Amazon drying up. I can't recall if it was that same program or another, but a fascinating detail shown was what happens to a well-balanced ecosystem when ONE SMALL staple is taken out. So the loss of bees, the loss of frogs, we may scoff at these things, but if these creatures play a significant role in nature's complex balance, then their loss is critical. Every time people don't want to tighten their belts and take disciplined action they seem to appoint a committee to study the matter, and all it does is waste time. psilver, you are muddying the waters on this one. NOT knowing as excuse to NOT act is extremely irresponsible given there are generations born after us who would like the RIGHT to live. And frankly, it pains me to see the loss of species happening faster than the DOW rises.
Even if global warming is occurring due to some natural cycle the earth is undertaking, why wouldn't we want to lower our emissions in case this is in fact effecting things? Yes, this does have huge economic implications. It would be terrible to devastate the economy due to a process we 'thought' was happening, but if what scientists say is right by the time we find out for certain that the world is changing because of our carbon emissions it will be too late. I say do what we can while we can do it. I'm not willing to take a chance on global extinction.
I don't buy rtdrury's moldy marxist analysis.
Sure, there's lots of environmental damage going on all around us. I've been noticing the lack of honeybees in the garden this spring.
But there are reports that indicate that, historically, CO2 levels increase some 800 years following a global warming trend, not preceding. This would indicate that rising levels of C02 could be the result, not the cause, of a warming trend.
Also, the "science" of global warming really does not have a strong empirical basis to it. The idea that increased uppper atmospheric C02 levels inhibits the escape of infrared radiation is controverted by the simple observation that desert temperatures still rise and fall dramatically, even within a 12 hour heating/cooling cycle. Infrared and other energies in the electromagnetic spectrum, such as microwaves, are converting all the time. The whole idea that C02 is "trapping" heat inside some earth "greenhouse" is still rather hypothetical. And since laboratory experiments on a global scale are not forthcoming, even "hypothetical" may need to be used in a loose, rather than scientific, sense.
Other non-man made explanations for climate change have not been given equal time by government and UN backed foundations. There have been scientific reports issued that indicate that earth is not the only planet warming up. Other planets in our solar system are also showing increased melting. This could indicate a system-wide phenomenon -- in other words, a non-man made phenomenon due to rising solar temperatures. Clearly, the sun, not anything humans do, is by far the major thermal contributor. An "Inconvenient Truth" simply does not pay ample attention to this inconvient truth.
But globalists seem bent on making Global Warming some great Global issue for Global Governance to solve. They already have a precommitment to relegating national and personal sovereignty to the historical dustbin as a precursor to "full spectrum dominance." And while George Bush is still "nay" on Kyoto, it's only a matter of time until all US neoconservatives jump on the Global Warming bandwagon. The switch has already been turned on from the top by the global elite and even Bush will fall in line, once it becomes politically required to do so.
We are in danger of seeing science become entirely politicized, as it once was in Galileo's time. Isn't it interesting that the Big Oil-headed Trilateral Commission is now talking Global Warming too? Why? "What's in it for Big Oil!" we gush. What's in it for Big Oil and the Trilateral gang is what's in it for all elite globalist powerbrokers: more top-down control to rearchitect the world according their "enlightened" designs. Global War on Terror, Global Peak Oil, Global Warming, and soon-to-come Global Financial Collapse -- all engineered by the elite themselves -- all combine nicely as the requisite precursor to Global Governance, which of course will be conveniently provided for us by the same elite who orchestrated the Global Catastrophe to begin with. Problem-Reaction-Solution: world domination in three easy steps. What an inconvenient truth!
And "no," just in case you're wondering. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist." The only conspiracy I believe in is the only one that has been scientifically proven by Dick Cheney, and that's the Al Queida Conspiracy. They are everywhere, buried deep beneath the ground where ordinary citizens cannot see them. But we know they're there, because Cheney and Co. have sworn they are. And one day they will pop up and take over the civilized world with nothing more than box cutters and dirt bombs, marvelous fellows they. Heaven help us. Yes, Global Elite, save us from Global Terror! Save us from Global Warming, too! Take our freedoms, only give us security and save the polar bears and we shall lick your boots!
The power and the responsibility are always the people's. The people can exercise their power and uphold their responsibility by boycotting the destructive capitalist enterprises and letting total costs guide individual trade decisions.
The term "capitalist" describes any power concentration, so, a dictator is a capitalist, a political lobby group is a capitalist. It's easy to find their Achilles heel and boycott them there. This is because every power concentration relies on some mechanism of enslaving people, usually economic. The economists arguing that economies will be damaged by carbon caps are dutifully serving to maintain capitalist control over markets, governments, and people.
We want the economy to fall into a tailspin as the economist describes. Nobody will be hurt except a few capitalists falling out of skyscraper windows. We can warn them ahead of time: "Boycott to commence, please lock your windows". The net result will be a shifting of economic power to local economies and small independent enterprises. The benefits are great. Just to name a few: Small independent enterprises are much more efficient that large ones. So there is less plunder of resources for the same amount of production. Strong local economies spread the political power to the people, where common sense prevails, so the public policy can begin to reflect the public interest.
In an ideal world we can trust public servants to faithfully execute the public will. But it should be clear now that the people cannot rely on public servants to do this. The people must boycott now, take their government back from the capitalists, and relieve the biosphere from reckless plunder. Let total costs guide your trade. You will find that total costs are reduced when you trade locally. It's easier to hold the locals accountable. It's a tried and true approach.
If you haven't noticed, we already have droughts, floods, disease, violent storms. But there isn't the will, desire or understanding to pass on carbon prices to consumers. Nothing will stand in the way of the continuing devastation of the planet, including massive deforestation, habitat loss, proliferation of chemicals, pollution, overfishing, to name just a few. First the frogs, then the bees, then each life form will become extinct as we race our way to consume and destroy nature to satisfy our profound greed.