Climate Policy: From ‘Know How’ to ‘Do Now’
Recent increased attention to global warming is very welcome. But much of it is misplaced.
We focus too much on complex climate models, which ask things like how far emissions will increase carbon dioxide concentration, how much that will raise temperatures, by when, with what consequences to climate and geography, and how likely new information will invalidate model results. Together these questions can paralyze us with uncertainty.
A better question for determining public policy is simpler: “Can we continue to emit increasing amounts of greenhouse gases without provoking unacceptable climate change?”
Scientists overwhelmingly agree the answer is no. The basic scientific principles and findings are very clear. Focusing on them creates a world of relative certainty for policy.
To draw a parallel, if you jump out of an airplane you need a crude parachute more than an accurate altimeter. And if you take an altimeter, don’t become so bemused tracking your descent that you forget to pull the ripcord.
The next question we should ask is, “What causes us to emit ever more carbon dioxide?”
It’s the same thing that causes us to make more of all kinds of wastes: our irrational commitment to economic growth forever on a finite planet.
If we overcome our growth idolatry, we can then ask, “How do we design and manage an economy that respects the limits of the biosphere so economy and biosphere both will survive?” But we are so fixated on maintaining an ever-growing economy that we instead ask, “By how much will we have to increase efficiency to maintain growth in gross domestic product?”
Suppose we answer, “By doubling efficiency,” and succeed. So what? We will then just do more of all the things that have become more efficient and therefore cheaper, and will then emit more wastes, including greenhouse gases. A policy of “efficiency first” does not give us “frugality second” — it makes frugality less necessary.
But if we go for “frugality first” — sustainability first — with a national tax on carbon, then we will get “efficiency second” as an adaptation to more expensive carbon fuels. Efficiency cannot abolish scarcity, despite what politicians say, but it can make scarcity less painful.
We must throw out our assumption that economic expansion is always good. There is much evidence that GDP growth at the margin in the United States is uneconomic growth, growth that increases social and environmental costs faster than it increases production benefits.
It is not hard to see how the reality of uneconomic growth sneaks up on us. We have moved from a world relatively empty of us and our stuff to a world relatively full of us, in one lifetime. In the empty world economy the limiting factor was manmade capital; in the full world it is remaining natural capital. Barrels of petroleum extracted once were limited by drilling rigs; now they are limited by remaining deposits, or by the atmosphere’s ability to absorb the products of combustion.
But we continue to invest in manmade capital rather than in restoration of natural capital.
In addition to this supply-side error, we have an equally monumental error on the demand side. We fail to take seriously that beyond a threshold of income already passed in the United States, happiness depends not on what we have, but on what we have relative to what our friends, co-workers and neighbors have.
What we need is a stiff severance tax on carbon as it emerges from the well and mine. Besides discouraging everyone’s use of climate-altering fossil fuels, this would enable us to raise enough tax dollars to replace regressive taxes on low incomes. Let’s tax the raw material, not the value added to it by processing and manufacturing. Higher input prices bring efficiency at all subsequent stages of production, and limiting depletion ultimately limits pollution.
Setting policy by first principles still leaves some uncertainties. It will require provision for making midcourse corrections. But at least we would have begun moving in the right direction. To continue business as usual while debating the predictions of complex models in a world made even more uncertain by the questions we ask is to fail to pull the ripcord.
Herman E. Daly, a former senior economist for the World Bank, is a professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. His books include “Steady-State Economics” and “Beyond Growth.” He wrote this comment for the Land Institute’s Prairie Writers Circle, Salina, Kan.
Read Peter Barnes “Climate Solutions-what works, what doesn’t and why” for solutions for yourself and your elected officials.
visit www.onthecommons.org for a free pdf version of the above book.
We need leadership at the top to convince us we have to do this. Remember when Jimmy Carter got us to put on our sweaters and not put up our Christmas lights? Obama can do it, but McCain just won’t. Do we want to live? I do!
“… happiness depends not on what we have, but on what we have relative to what our friends, co-workers and neighbors have.”
We need to get beyond envy. The above formulation leads to an unending spiral of “keeping up with the jones”. We need to evolve beyond “growth”, to some spiritual measure of “development” that does not rely on endless expansion of consumption.
Brian - you missread the quote. Daly is calling what you quoted him a “monumental error”. Dr. Daly is a true vissionary. Dr. Daly was one of the pioneers who many decades ago warned of the “limits to growth”. I highly recommend his seminal “Steady-state Economics”.
Stop max growth being the actual default-option purpose of corporate legislation.
I repeat: as it is, the de facto consensual goal of this society is the tacit default option in the purpose of corporations, which is max growth.
Max growth. This is our lunacy. Legislation written ages ago by men now dead dictate how we relate to our surrounding Nature. Max growth, as wished by dead men who had no clue of the limitations we’re now up against. And still we follow these dead men: Max Growth. How stupid is that?
We need a better purpose to strive for, a better aim, and one we can discuss openly - not just a default result.
A human’s growth over lifetime is up to a fully grown size of on average 75 kg, living some 75 years. Average growth then is 1 kg/year. This is what WE grow, and this our own growth could well function as a blue-print for how we again relate to nature: we could reproduce activity at the same rate. 1 kg/year over 75 years makes 1.33 % growth per annum.
1.33 % growth per annum, rather than max growth as legislated default option.
That’d solve it. Over some time.
“We’re all outgrowths on this Plan(e)t
working on this Plan(e)t’s growth…”
What Daly is saying is that people are happiest when everyone is relatively the same. We could all live in 1,000 sf homes and be happy as long as everyone is living in homes in the range of 800-1,200 sf. When some people start to have more, then others feel anxious and want more for a variety of reasons.
Our society, with it’s obsession of the rich and famous leaves us feeling inadequate and propels us to want more and more and more and more, to our real detriment.
We, and I hope I can speak for 1000 other inventors, have the know how now.
What do you need?
–Highly efficient solar and wind electricity
–storage of electricity for windless days
–fuelless cars that use the aforementioned electricity
–vastly better transit systems
–buildings that heat and cool themselves in several ways.
–reduction of incoming solar heat on earth, and better outgo of this heat
–More plants eating more CO2, eventually putting carbon into the topsoil where it’s useful.
–More and better carbon sinks
This is the knowhow and not doing anything now outrages me. Not doing now, not doing later, maybe never. You non-inventors have no idea how the business world savages solar dreams, over and over again, from the dreams to the product rollouts. That’s a major reason why your planet is cooking.
You’re not responsible. Well, no one else is either, and that’s the problem. Is the next person going to do anything about this critical problem? Are you? Are your grandkids going to do anything?
It’ll take a paradigm shift in the way we view ourselves and what we value. It will take a large propaganda machine/PR blitz relative to the one Americans saw during WW2. Rationing and conserving were seen as “helping” and taking more was seen as aiding the enemy.
Until the leaders of the country do this, we have to do it ourselves. We may just be the leaders we are waiting for.
Frugality and stabilizing economy also, crucially, entail limiting the number of human consumers brought into the world. It’s high time this basic, common-sense meme gets rescued from the hole it’s buried in and brought out into the open light of reason.
You want babies? Too bad. Use your head.
If you want to skip this post, please Google “William McDonough” or go look for clips about his work on YouTube.
————————-
The “economic growth vs. ecological balance” question is a red herring.
It’s not our economic models (though badly flawed and rife with social injustice) that generate greenhouse gases, it’s our choice of energy systems. It’s our choice of materials. It’s our lack of sound design.
For example, if the USA had any sense at all, it would immediately research and develop clean energy solutions and solutions for mitigating the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The conversion to such energy solutions, including exporting such technologies around the globe, would be an economic boon, a huge growth industry.
So economic growth in and of itself is not tied to environmental collapse.
The entire planet can live at a very high standard of living through *sustaining* method. *Sustaining* is distinct from *sustainable* in that our waste is not an “acceptable” amount, but rather food for the environment.
Waste = Food
That’s what happens in nature and we can make happen with everything from cars and tires to the materials that insulate our homes.
Please please please read up on the engineering and design work of William McDonough. There are clips of him speaking on YouTubem, but he doesn’t just talk, he makes things happen.
He installed a textile manufacturing plant for Ciba Geigy where the water that comes out of the plant is actually cleaner than the water going in. And you could eat the textiles because they are actually non-toxic. (His process replaced another in which both the effluent AND the product were highly toxic.) He has create materials for shoe soles that, as they wear and fall to the ground, actually feed the soil instead of polluting it.
As he says, if you’re driving toward Canada at 100 miles an hour but you really want to go to Mexico, slowing down to 50 mph does not represent real progress.
He demonstrates that we can turn the car around.
“We must throw out our assumption that economic expansion is always good.”
I agree. Mr. Daly is right. That assumption is deadly for the world.
There is one problem though. Mr. Daly failed to note that our economic system, market capitalism, is based on the assumption of continuous growth. From the time of modern Capitalism’s birth during the Industrial Revolution, Capitalism has always needed to expand. From at least the 19th Century on, one of goals of colonialism/imperialism (and the wars that go with it) was/is to provide new markets for excess production; another is to capture natural resources vital to that expansion, (e.g. oil and the Iraq “war”).
The Industrial Revolution, the expansion of the use of fossil fuels and Capitalism all all have a symbiotic relationship. It is not such a stretch to argue that Climate change is a RESULT of Capitalist expansion. Without addressing our economic system, not just one of its assumptions we won’t get very far in tackling the problems of global warming.
Mr. Daly’s myopic vision can be explained by his resume-an economist for the World Bank. Although, I should add, that someone who ostensibly embraces the system is beginning to question its assumptions.
Losing the 24/7 mindset/model would go a long way in conserving our ever more valuable natural resources, improving our economy, our environment and our quality of life. This should include the lack of need to advertise/protect a business using electric signs and lights.
Also, Daylight Savings Time.
Oops.
This should include the lack of need to advertise/protect a business using electric signs and lights, when it isn’t open for business.
No more new cars that get less than 40 mpg and cutting way back on how much meat we eat would be a good start. Those things we could do without the government stepping in, if we wanted to (if we were told the truth about how serious a problem global warming is, that is).
The article has many good points on addressing the issue of climate policy. There are so many things that could be done by the average person that would cause emissions to go down:
1. Stop mowing the grass! Grow ground covers instead; most cities have allowances that many plants will fit inside of.
2. Find a way of reducing gasoline consumption by %2 or %3, if 120 million auto users were to shift from the current fleet of cars powered with gasoline engines to gas-electric hybrids with the fuel efficiency of the Toyota Prius, gasoline use could easily be cut in half. Simply raising gas efficiency by 2 or 3 gal/mile per car, we could do away with oil imports and substantially reduce co2 emissions.
3. And the list goes on. However we finally would reach the point where efficiency and reduced use would have a marginal effect and co2 might continue to increase; this is true because there are already too many people on the planet and more people will just cause more emissions, for the simple biological reason that we as biological entities release CO2 as our bodies metabolize organic material.
The old days of the dawning of ecological awareness brought us tracts by Barry Commoner who saw that the ultimate ecological disaster was all too certain if family planning and population control were not made a part of public policy
“We need leadership at the top to convince us we have to do this. Remember when Jimmy Carter got us to put on our sweaters and not put up our Christmas lights? Obama can do it, but McCain just won’t. Do we want to live? I do!”
JaneM,
By all means, vote for the most progressive candidates and pressure them to follow through on their promises. However, if you wait for the old top-down paradigm to make the necessary changes, your wish at the end of your sentence will be for naught. You must do it yourself, and by doing so you will influence others. That is how paradigms shift.
Can we coalesce around a national (and international) policy of sustainability and begin to move our demands on the Ecosystem down to what it can supply before nature takes on the task for itself?
The war in Iraq, and cars eating grain and the Amazon [sic] suggest the latter process is now under way? If so, then what? Anyone care to comment? Remember Garrett Hardin’s notorious letter to SCIENCE magazine titled, “Tragedy of the Commons.” It is not a pretty document.
Mr. Daly’s basic ideas are most relevant except that these authors continue to enable the perpetration of the crimes by failing to focus attention on the elites, their actions and their intents. We need the spotlight on the source, please.
What we need is a stiff severance tax on carbon as it emerges from the well and mine.
There is nothing to show that taxing raw material production is any better or worst than taxing retail consumption. But either way, the tax is very likely to be a dull knife that doesn’t cut butter and only makes a mess, and certainly cuts nothing else. We do need to limit consumption and the most exacting and comprehensive way is to put full costs in the retail prices of everything. Full costs may be thought of as a progressive tax on all things expensive. It also keeps the people engaged and enlightened.
Brian Brademeyer: We need to evolve beyond “growth”, to some spiritual measure of “development” that does not rely on endless expansion of consumption.
The spiritual element is the missing link in the United States. Our very peculiar spirituality serves the capitalist agenda to keep us detached from our planet Earth, to push us toward capitalist production, and the pursuit of that insane, criminal capitalist goal of economic growth at any/all cost. Our spirituality has to include harmony with the all the people and the planet.
It should be self evident that continual growth of a biological organism or economy is an impossibility. Both are dependent upon their larger world of their habitat or environment. At some point natural resources, food, waste issues start to kick in. We can’t breath, drink or eat money. I became aware of Herman Daly when he was the loan steady state economist at Louisiana State University in the 1960’s. Great guy, little support. Connect Herman to the ecological footprint folks and you will see where we are headed. All systems have a period of youth and growth, a period of maturity and stableness, and a period of old age and decline to death. For most of us maintaining maturity and stableness (sustainability) is the key to this process. Civilizations of the past have indicated to us that mass society follows the same pattern as individuals. Would it not be wise to examine the concept of the steady state society?
I like it when people say to tax gasoline usage. A lot of people use gas for their jobs. If these jobs are eliminated more people will be on the unemployment line.
Good paying jobs are not easily replaced.
I have a better idea. Why not tax people’s usage of the p.c? Or everytime someone flushes 5 gallons of water down the toilet? What about everytime someone purchases a soda or iced tea in a plastic bottle.
If people are so concerned about global warming gas rationing should come into play.
That way the rich or upper classes will be sure to share the suffering.
I would like to address the Author’s analogy “if you jump out of an airplane you need a crude parachute more than an accurate altimeter”.
My argument is that predominantly only individuals use “Parachutes”. Perhaps a better metaphor, when used alongside “Public Policy”, would be a “Jumbo Jet”?
My position is that we should pursue both a personal and public course of action.
The Author indicated concern over undue focus on details, “like how far emissions will increase carbon dioxide concentration, how much that will raise temperatures, by when, with what consequences to climate and geography, and how likely new information will invalidate model results.”
We are all familiar with the quote “Knowledge is power”, the greater one’s personal grasp of a situation, the better equipped one becomes to cope with the situation. Therefore, I suggest that we all devote some time to stay abreast of our common circumstance.
With understanding, we may ultimately ascertain that the “Jumbo Jet” we are all aboard has encountered insurmountable difficulty and only with our personal understanding are we therefore even aware of the need to fabricate a crude personal parachute.
Considering individual priority
The more encompassing one’s understanding becomes, the more reliably and predictably, one is able to separate the “Wheat from the Chaff”. In other words, the Spin Doctors increasingly lose their influence on us and if we are to gain the trust and confidence of our peers in order to expand public awareness, it is important to provide them with the best data possible. Our friends will then talk to their friends and on and on, consensus expands like ripples in a pond.
Instinctually, individuals always satisfy their own needs prior to that of their species. Largely I suspect that this is the source of much of our worldly troubles. Humankind’s intellectual progress competes against the pace of our genetic evolution. I suspect that there are bounds for evolution, which humanity’s intellect has surpassed. We are simply like children with the power to kill, 5 year olds with pistols. Indeed, knowledge is a double-edged sword, it has lifted humanity to its present state of elevation above all other species, and as well, it confronts us with our involvement in our current state of affairs. I submit that it is incumbent upon humanity, conferred with such power to be stewards for the vessels in which we wield the helm. When in control, one also assumes some responsibility.
Some cohorts posit that humanity is in some part in charge of the entire biomass. If true, then we have accepted a colossal amount of accountability.
Let us now consider public policy.
Oftentimes the most disheartening hurdle is not the overall distribution of accurate data to the interested. Our issue is an inadequate power required to expand interest in the data to those that lack interest.
As I see it, there are two primary approaches.
The first approach is to make the message of more interest.
The second approach involves greater dissemination of the message.
We are all individuals, endowed with our own individual aptitudes. I suggest that we all do all that we can both publicly and privately to address our common dilemma. For it is with unity and acceptance of others that we can muster the consensus required for global course corrections. In other words, take care of both yourselves and of the entire planet. The obstacle to overcome is divineness. Red state versus Blue state, Bloods versus Crips, Black versus White, Christian versus Muslim. After all, we are all one species. We can tell that we are one species being that we can interbreed. Dolphins and Sea Turtles do not breed for they are of different species. If all races, cultures, religions and sects melded into one, who would we trample over to reach the mountaintops then.
Embrace our differences, if only for the diversity of opinion. Surely all facets are aboard the same ship. Should the vessel sink, all aboard suffer the same destiny?
Lastly, no offense to the Author, I merely wanted to contribute.
Flying over the US is such an eye-opener….Start with reforestation… promote legislation against clear-cutting (world wide)…. bring those troops home and set our Military to reforesting, rebuilding here….Support the troops ….
DEMAND ELECTRIC VEHICLES (Our gov. has purposefully put standards and mph governs on them to make them unattractive to the average buyer)…DEMAND ways to re-fit your car with Electric Motors (there are systems that can do this)
DEMAND that corporations start releasing their hidden patents that can bring solutions.
Such interesting comments. It’s good to see an article that mentions climate change and global warming here that won’t be buried in the archives in two days. Yes indeedy, we ALL must do things to reduce Co2 and of course reduce over-population. Being 72 years old now, don’t worry about the baby problem from me. But I do love women. Greatest gift God ever gave us guys and it only took one rib.
You know what? Every American, us bloggers here included can stop driving a vehicle, never use a gas powered engine ever again, never cut our grass, stop eating meat, don’t burn any wood or charcoal, have no more children and kill all of the cows, pigs, sheep, chickens and cattle in America and it would not stop what is now beginning to occur.
It is a world wide problem, we Americans of course are the major polluter, but if we all died tomorrow, it would not help this problem written in an article in the link I will post here. The article is a three minute read. It was first published four years ago by one of the world’s top geologists, ~John Atcheson~. He stated that we must act now, or very soon to prevent the end of all life on the planet.
Wow, strong doomsayer words. Another Chicken Little? ___ Nope, the words and warning of a man who has spent his entire adult life studying the water planet Earth. He has scientifically proven his evaluations and findings are correct and hundreds of top level scientists and geologists totally agree with him.
We can prevent it, but it will require a combined effort of all of the worlds leaders. They must lay down their swords and come together to fight a war against global warming.
That war can be fought and won, but we will have to replace our energy sources of coal fired power plants, world wide, with truly clean energy, wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal and wave power. ___ Or nuclear energy. Of course the truly clean alternatives are much safer, less expensive than nulear and they require no mined fuel and no storage of deadly nuclear waste. The technology is proven and it is a vialble and affordable alterntive.
In addition, we must then also have vehicles powered by electricity, phasing them in within a four year time frame, all electrical powered and heated homes and commercial buildings. We must stop burning fossil fuels. That is the only chance we have and we must do all of that within the next ten to twelve years world-wide. If we do not do those things, we have perhaps twenty to fifty years tops, or all life on Earth will be obliterated. __ Just love that new word Hillary gave us. It’s so final and dramatic sounding.
Please read this article, it takes three minutes and it’s very importnat that everyone on the planet knows about it. Finally, please do not think that I am attempting to be a know it all, or a wizard.
I am not a scienitst and am not voicing my personal opinions of the serious nature of the issue, which BTW, I find to be the most importnat issue we have, as I know of none other of such importnace. The opinions expressed about what needs to be done to prevent the looming disaster, are my opinions.
So if any should disagree with the article, or with the author, please do address it and state why and for what reasons you may have to disagree and others can debate it here with logic and good humor.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
Hi Kem Patrick,
I hope you’re not saying it’s too late to do anything. Of course, if we all died tonight, we would certainly end up emitting considerable amounts of carbon as we began to decay…
tinylotus and others,
Demanding electric cars so we can keep commuting and shopping in some sort of car is not nearly enough. Electric cars are a sop to make you feel better about doing what you have no intention of changing.
I recommend bicycles. Kem Patrick and others will point out that bicycles, even, are not nearly enough of a reduction in carbon production and resource consumption to turn around the planet.
Many readers of CD recommend becoming vegetarian. This, too, may not be enough.
Not having kids is important. I didn’t because I didn’t want to bring anyone into a world on the down-side of peak oil, peak population, peak resources, peak aggression and so many other peak-based problems. Besides, I’m concerned about the quality of life for the kids already here.
Daly is absolutely right. Growth cannot be forever. Resources are limited. We are using up the fossil fuels. We will have to return to the daily renewable energy via solar power (solar, wind, water, wood, muscle). Not only that, but we will have to return to using renewables on a renewable basis. Currently, a frightening number of renewables are consumed in a frighteningly non-renewable way: topsoil, aquifers, forests, ocean fish…
So, required actions are way beyond wearing sweaters and turning down thermostats 1-2 degrees!
If we can forestall a methane burp and thermonuclear war, a tax on the each toilet flush and each square of TP may well be around the corner (at least in terms of exorbitant pricing for water and paper). Then, we will have to convert to the humanure system and ‘wiping’ with water! Better start now!
Copied from an opinion piece in the April 2008 Scientific American (pg42):
…the mathematical theories used by mainstream economists are predicated on the following unscientific assumptions:
The market system is a closed circular flow between production and consumption, with no inlets or outlets.
Natural resources exist in a domain that is separate and distinct from a closed market system, and the economic value of these resources can be determined only by the dynamics that operate within this system.
The costs of damage to the external natural environment by economic activities must be trated as costs that lie outside the closed market system and cannot be included in the pricing mechanisms thet operate within the system.
The external resources of nature are largely inexhaustable , and those that are not can be replaced by other resources or technologies that minimize the use of the exhaustible resources or that rely on other resources.
There are no biophysical limits to the growth of market systems.
Damage to the environment can be ignored
The environment is a free garbage dump
There is no limit on natural resources
Technology solves all problems
Evolution implies that life is an experiment with no apparent goal or endpoint. In order to continue, life (dependent variable) must adapt successfully to a changing enviornment (independent variable). Humans are changing the enviornment and thus are attempting to adapt to an enviornment that they are degrading at the same time. Can this continue?
There is no consensus on what is causing global warming. I mean, the polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking. Maybe it’s the sun. Maybe it is man. Maybe something else. Nobody really knows for sure. In the 70’s we were told we might be entering an ice age.
As for methane hydrates, certainly this is an issue which should be monitored. The rate of Methane accumulation in the atmosphere has been decreasing since 1987, and since 1998 has been constant. The methane burp would require an ocean temperature increase of 10.8 degrees, something not expected until 2100, and only the most pessimistic models predict it. The upper ocean temperature has increased 0.11 degrees since 1993. But with methane hydrates, it is the temperature of the water at depth that is important, not the surface, since pressure is as important as temperature. I believe the temperature of the ocean at depth has not increased more than surface temperatures, and the surface temperatures do not seem to be increasing that rapidly.
But certainly, we would all love to see fossil fuel consumption reduced and replace it with a cleaner fuel, remove all doubt and ensure an energy supply for the future. Where is the massive research program funded by the globalist elites to get this done?. Their only solution seems population reduction and lower standards of living via reduced consupmption. Hitler was a threat, so we funded the Manhattan Project. Where is the Manhattan Project to get us off fossil fuels if it is such a danger? There is none.
So you have to suspect there is no threat, or that a culling of the herd is imminent. Get us down to 600 million people, and perhaps all will be well. Who decides who gets culled and who does not?.
Global warming has certainly been used as a propaganda tool to get people terrified enough to accept globalization and a reduced standard of living via reduced consumption, not to mention population reduction. The UN is controlled by a bunch of neo-malthusian psychopaths, this writer worked for the World Bank, enough said.
I know we all like to believe scientists are honest folks, pure at heart, interested only in the science they practice. However, they like to eat. Scientists earn a living by getting grants and aid from governments and tax free foundations who are controlled by the globalist elite, or by doing research for government agencies or corporations that are motivated by profit, also controlled or owned by the globalist elite. In all fairness, when scientists do not fully understand what they study, you get different interpretations of the same data. But there is undue influence at work too.
The Rockefellers with their oil and banking interests, and tax free foundations, fund both ends of the argument, global warming and the environmental issue to keep limitations on refinery capacity and drilling for new oil supplies, and also they fund the peak oil myth while working against nuclear power and other alternative energy supplies, and take the side against envirnmentalism as an excuse for tight supplies that raise prices. So both of these help keep prices high, and act as a tool for the globalization movement to use oil as a weapon against countries who are not with the program, and force countries into debt to buy oil which serves the banking interests .
Now that they control 80% of uranium supplies, look for nuclear power to make a comeback, but they will control the price and they will fund the uranium shortage myth, as well as hype the dangers to increase regulation which will make uranium recycling and disposal, both of which they will control, expensive.
I believe growth can be forever. Humans have a tremendous capacity for innovation (look at our finance industries ability to innovate and steal your money). Yet technology and industry focus not on growth, it has been focused on reducing growth and increasing government power over it’s own citizens, and weapons to be used against other nations. If this effort was redirected to develop the planet in an environmentally friendly way, we could have population growth and increased living standards.
A substitute for war was studied and reported in “A Report from Iron Mountain” in the 60’s. It was obviously rejected, and perpetual low grade wars and repression of growth and living standards improvment was chosen, and democracy and the constitution were put to rest.
Daly is right that the growth paradigm is a large part of what has stymied effective action on climate change, and he’s right that action must begin immediately. But to use his analogy, being in a hurry to pull the ripcord rather than being too focused on the altimeter is fine if you took the time to buy a real parachute–but if you grabbed one that turns out to have been a plastic toy (at WalMart, no doubt)then pulling the cord hard and fast and repeatedly still won’t slow your descent. What I’m saying is that dealing with climate change (and peak oil and overpopulation) is so urgent that there is no time left for false solutions–like biofuels and “clean coal” and nukes. We’ve got it get it right the first time.
Unfortunately, at the moment the evidence is that most politicians world-wide are ready for only the most tepid responses, and the public can’t solve the problem with individual action alone. Someone mentioned the idea that the government could do a major PR effort to demonstrate to the public the necessity for drastic action–but the problem is that government, corporations and the media have become one inseparable interest group–I call it the corporate-government-media complex. They have worked to PREVENT this awareness from growing. Now that the severity of this problem has become clear, the humans embedded within this machine must be contemplating change, as they have children for whom they presumably don’t wish an early death on a ruined world–but I suspect they’re contemplating “solutions” somewhat like those suggested by MimiCcs in his/her rant…although I would call the belief that thousands of scientists from all over the world are colluding to present false data to suggest a non-existent problem severe enough to justify drastic action, in order to create a global dictatorship, poor judgement.
It is the competative nature of Americans to be the best. It is called keeping up with the Jones. If I drive a John Deer mower with a wet bar attatched then Bob next door needs one as well. Trouble is the economy of this great country has has the GUTS SOLD OUT OF IT IN THE NAME OF PROFITS AT ALL COSTS. Right now the G.Bush admin is the leader of this profits at all costs movement. Do you feel a JM HC or BO will be anything different? THE answer is a NO IT WILL NOT CHANGE.
Germany Launches Its Transition To All Renewables (No Nukes either)
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.feature/id/1208
Carbon- and nuclear-free America possible by 2050
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/1/92920/47226
I’d like to get back to this article’s focus on taxes as part of the solution:
I still am leaning more toward the National Sales Tax (see FairTax.org) which is more about equality- the Carbon Tax is more about our energy crisis. A focus on Commodities Taxes, well a lot of what is bought and sold doesn’t depend on raw materials (in the manner this article seems to be focusing) and still (though not for long) oversees suppliers might not be able to support our taxes.
But thank you for the link, I will read the book. (“Climate Solutions”)
I was glad that Gravel and Paul ‘were’ in this election… maybe some people heard there discussions for different economic and representative focuses/goals.
We have the ways and means. We need leaders, on the national and international level, to allow for enthusiasm and change- at odds with the current controlling interests. A leadership like that will come after a tipping point in local sustainability efforts, which may come after extreme economic hardships, if the courts don’t keep making sustainability and independence illegal. Ok, so now I’m getting cynical.
But the whole idea of the No Taxes Without Representation is our weapon.
That’s not to say a Carbon Tax is not a more politically feasable option… need more discussion
“I still am leaning more toward the National Sales Tax (see FairTax.org) which is more about equality”
What “equality” is there in a national sales tax (which would presumably include food and clothing)? No taxes are more regressive than a retail sales taxes imposed directly on people buying necessities. Why do such tax extreme pro-rich, anti-worker proposals, which wouldn’t be considered anywhere else in the world have such currency in the US?
If we need a national tax derived from goods, why doesn’t the US simply join the civilised world in using a value-added tax? But, this should augment, not replace an income tax system.
http://www.oildepletionprotocol.org/theprotocol
The Oil Depletion Protocol
As drafted by Dr. Colin J. Campbell*
WHEREAS the passage of history has recorded an increasing pace of change, such that the demand for energy has grown rapidly in parallel with the world population over the past two hundred years since the Industrial Revolution;
WHEREAS the energy supply required by the population has come mainly from coal and petroleum, such resources having been formed but rarely in the geological past and being inevitably subject to depletion;
WHEREAS oil provides ninety percent of transport fuel, is essential to trade, and plays a critical role in the agriculture needed to feed the expanding population;
WHEREAS oil is unevenly distributed on the Planet for well-understood geological reasons, with much being concentrated in five countries bordering the Persian Gulf;
WHEREAS all the major productive provinces of the World have been identified with the help of advanced technology and growing geological knowledge, it being now evident that discovery reached a peak in the 1960s, despite technological progress and a diligent search;
WHEREAS the past peak of discovery inevitably leads to a corresponding peak in production during the first decade of the 21st Century, assuming no radical decline in demand;
WHEREAS the onset of the decline of this critical resource affects all aspects of modern life, such having grave political and geopolitical implications;
WHEREAS it is expedient to plan an orderly transition to the new World environment of reduced energy supply, making early provisions to avoid the waste of energy, stimulate the entry of substitute energies, and extend the life of the remaining oil;
WHEREAS it is desirable to meet the challenges so arising in a co-operative and equitable manner, such to address related climate change concerns, economic and financial stability, and the threats of conflicts for access to critical resources.
NOW IT IS PROPOSED THAT
A convention of nations shall be called to consider the issue with a view to agreeing an Accord with the following objectives:
• to avoid profiteering from shortage, such that oil prices may remain in reasonable relationship with production cost;
• to allow poor countries to afford their imports;
• to avoid destabilizing financial flows arising from excessive oil prices;
• to encourage consumers to avoid waste;
• to stimulate the development of alternative energies.
Such an Accord shall have the following outline provisions:
• The world and every nation shall aim to reduce oil consumption by at least the world depletion rate.
• No country shall produce oil at above its present depletion rate.
• No country shall import at above the world depletion rate.
• The depletion rate is defined as annual production as a percent of what is left (reserves plus yet-to-find).
• The preceding provisions refer to regular conventional oil—which category excludes heavy oils with cut-off of 17.5 API, deepwater oil with a cut-off of 500 meters, polar oil, gas liquids from gas fields, tar sands, oil shale, oil from coal, biofuels such as ethanol, etc.
Detailed provisions shall cover the definition of the several categories of oil, exemptions and qualifications, and the scientific procedures for the estimation of Depletion Rate.
The signatory countries shall cooperate in providing information on their reserves, allowing full technical audit, such that the Depletion Rate may be accurately determined.
The signatory countries shall have the right to appeal their assessed Depletion Rate in the event of changed circumstances.
*This text, with slight changes in wording, has elsewhere been published as “The Rimini Protocol” and “The Uppsala Protocol.”
A better question for determining public policy is simpler: “Can we continue to emit increasing amounts of greenhouse gases without provoking unacceptable climate change?”
Simpler? This is a horribly complex question, which throws into question the remainder of Daly’s article and thought processes.
The key word in Daly’s statement is unacceptable. Please define what constitutes unacceptable climate change.
No the National Sales Tax (NST) proposals out there do not include unprocessed grocery food items (my words). It seems more equitable because you can choose what and if you buy anything (for the most part, don’t get crazy on me) RATHER than the income tax system which you don’t (created in 1914? and actuall not legal under the constitution- “shall tax profit and dividends, not labor”… well anyway I’m not getting into that argument!)
As for the rest of the ‘civilized world’ they have all sorts of tax systems (Michigan adopted then stopped it’s VAT system), so….
And I’d like to reiterate that I haven’t made up my mind, and I like discussions like these
there is a lot to learn, and we need MORE of this conversation (hence the reference to Paul and Gravel, Huckabee etc)
the value-added tax (VAT) is not applied to exports; as an indirect tax the adminstration of it can be confusing and ripe with loopholes (why I for now lean towards NST because it is simple for that reason); both the VAT and NST are regressive taxes (of course, richer people buy more); your total tax is hidden in all the layers of production.
VAT is gaining favor worldwide with Production businesses, not Retail businesses. Either way the consumer pays whatever aggregate taxes.
Again, I’m still learning…. but the 1st response I get when bringing the subject up is that “oh crap, I buy stuff, I don’t make stuff, don’t tax me!” or some variation. Aside from TOTAL tax from the consumer/citezen being lower (according to NST, but their explanation makes sense) the biggest BENEFIT is that it gives citezens power- here’s why: it’s simple and understandable. No more tax lawyers. No more loopholes. No more tax havens. (and don’t dare bring up the flat tax)
the EU has VAT, it’s also at/above 25%. If you take a product through VAT vs NST you can come up with the same price of goods. But what is important is equitability… everyone understands what is being taxed, how much, and that no one cheats. Now the NST is not perfect…. just an example that we need sensible tax solutions. There are good things about VAT, but when you can explain it’s collection in simple, managable, safe, and equitable terms, then it will move up in my opinion. but that’s my opinion. Think for yourself.
Anyway, there’s a lot more for me to read up on the VAT. Now for the Carbon Tax….
A simpler way to view it, I found, and please add to this, and it’s a big oversimplification….
1. Say total taxes (Payroll, Commodity and Sales taxes) is 25%
2. Do you collect them all along the way or at the end?
The biggest payoff is the elimination of Administrative Costs in the government and the production and retail businesses involved. My favorite NST proposals eliminate the IRS, Payroll taxes, and a whole lot of admin costs along the whole process. Admin Costs are HUGE. The other payoff, as I’ve previously stated, is that it is easier for us to understand, and ultimately manage.
Just think of the healthcare debate, a Universal Single Payer Health System (Medicare for All) would eliminate the profit ‘costs’ and administrative costs from our insurance system.
Plus, you pay on what you BUY, not what you EARN. Of course, in this country we have taxes everywhere. We pay on what we Buy, Earn, and Sell.
Now, THE REAL WORLD: A Carbon Tax would make perfect sense to me in our current system, as it is very focused, and may be easier to produce politically. A oil company wouldn’t like it because it would eventually decrease the demand by raising prices. A NST would raise prices, but also raise earnings by eliminating payroll taxes, and would eventually decrease consumption on things that use oil to get sold, as well as everything else… which leads us back to our Permanent Growth argument. (and Mr. Daly’s claim that a carbon tax can replace the (income tax) doesn’t seem sound.
And again the Constitution says that there should be no taxes on labor. We the People were duped into the Income Tax. Now we need to take it back. Just how complicated a system should we make… and should we allow our corporatist representative do it?
Kem- I have seen you post in other articles about the looming dangers of Methane as related to Global Climate Change, but kept quiet on the subject until I had read some of the information about it.
I just finished ‘The Last Generation’ by Pearce. In it he goes into detail about the threat of methane.
Hoo boy.
All of your previous posts didn’t begin to reveal exactly how devastating a massive release of methane would be for us. Taking methane into account would shoot global temperatures up possibly by as much as 10 degrees C.
And the BAD tipping point is 4 degrees C.
It time to forcibly shut down the American Nightmare factory.
Hi ~GALEN~ I do not know how I could have made it any clearer, that the methane Gas issue is or should be, our very MOST important issue. That is exactly what I have posted repeatedly and so many here have told everyone that I was wrong.
Actually, I’m very tired of wasting my time here at Common Dreams arguing with the trolls and others like ~PRESENCE~ who are tired of hearing about our most important issue and wish to say the geologists John Atcheson and Michael J. Benton are wrong about it and therfore so am I by relying upon their findings. ___ Glad you read a book about it, someone will likely tell you it’s nonsense. ___ Bye.
From ~GALEN~ to ~KEM PATRICK~. May 15th, 1:17pm.
KEM, ___ “All of your previous posts didn’t begin to exactly reveal how devastating a massive release of methane would be for us.”
Actually Galen, on all of my MANY previous posts on the issue of the Arctic methane gas, I have stated that the massive methane burps which will surely occur if we don’t stop using coal and fossil fuels, would kill EVERYONE and almost every living thing on the planet within a day’s time.
Is there some way I possibly could have written it so it would sound more “devastating”, more dramatic or final? ___ Help me please, I’m not real good with words. I thought that every human and animal down to the microbal level on Earth suddenly dying, was about as “dramatic” as it gets.
And now if we are lucky, we will hear from the scientist ~Namaste~ or ~Presence~, or perhaps his sidekicks ~Mesanthorpe~ or ~Wildhhalm 19~ or~GEO 522~, who will explain that the methane gas danger issue is exaggerated, or totally bogus and ~Kem Patrick~ is full of crap. Of course Kem Patrick didn’t write the article published in this link.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
It takes three full minutes to read the article in that link.
Then there is another blogger, who says the Energy Bulletin site is no good and therefore the author of the above posted link’s article is wrong. He has a much better opinion. Yippee,___ and the bleats go on.
Please don’t buy any more.
Evelyna, I totally agree when you say we need to get beyond petroleum or carbon taxation, and look to more progressive approaches like energy rationing. Dr. David Fleming’s TEQs scheme represents the idea in its clearest form, and it is currently being seriously examined by the UK Government. I’d love to know what the brilliant Herman Daly would make of it
Batteries, we should always seriously get rid of it.