Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Copenhagen Has Given Us the Chance to Face Climate Change With Honesty
Last weekend's minimalist Copenhagen global climate accord provides a great opportunity. The old deceitful, ineffectual approach is severely wounded and must die. Now there is a chance for the world to get on to an honest, effective path to an agreement.
The centrepiece of the old approach was a "cap-and-trade" scheme, festooned with offsets and bribes – bribes that purportedly, but hardly, reduced carbon emissions. It was analogous to the indulgences scheme of the Middle Ages, whereby sinners paid the Church for forgiveness.
In today's indulgences the sinners, developed countries, buy off developing countries by paying for "offsets" to their own emissions and providing reparation money for adaptation to climate change. But such hush money won't work. Yes, some developing country leaders salivated over the proffered $100 billion per year. But by buying in, they would cheat their children and ours. Besides, even the $100 billion hush money is fugacious. The US, based on its proportion of the fossil fuel carbon in the air today, would owe $27 billion per year. Chance of Congress providing that: dead zero. Maybe the UK will cough up its $6 billion per year and Germany its $7 billion per year. But who will collect Russia's $7 billion per year?
Most purchased "offsets" to fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions are hokey. But there is no need to flagellate the details of this modern indulgences scheme. Science provides an unambiguous fact that our leaders continue to ignore: carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning remains in the climate system for millennia. The only solution is to move promptly to a clean energy future.
The difficulty is that fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, if the price does not include the damage they do to human health, the planet, and the future of our children. "Goals" for future emission reductions, whether "legally binding" or not, are utter nonsense as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy. The Kyoto Protocol illustrates the deceit of our governments, which have not screwed up their courage to face down the fossil fuel industry. As the graph here shows, global fossil fuel emissions were increasing 1.5% per year prior to the 1997 Kyoto accord. After "Kyoto" emission growth accelerated to 3% per year. A few developed countries reduced their fossil fuel use. The only important effect of that was to slightly reduce demand for fuel, helping to keep its price down. The fuel was burned in other places, and products made were shipped back to developed countries.
As far as the planet is concerned, agreements to "cap" emissions, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the imagined Copenhagen Protocol, are worthless scraps of paper. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned somewhere. This fact helps define a solution to the climate problem. Yes, people must make changes in the way they live. Countries must cooperate. Matters as intractable as population must be included. Technology improvements are required. Changes must be economically efficient. The climate solution necessarily will increase the price of fossil fuel energy. We must admit that. But in the end, energy efficiency and carbon-free energy can be made less expensive than fossil fuels, if fossil fuels' cost to society is included. The solution must have honesty, backbone and a fair international framework. We need a rising price on carbon applied at the source (the mine, wellhead, or port of entry). The fee will affect all activities that use fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. The entire fee collected from fossil fuel companies should be distributed to the public. In this fee-and-dividend approach people maintaining a carbon footprint smaller than average will receive more in the dividend than they pay via increased energy costs. The monthly dividend, deposited electronically in their bank account or on their debit card, will stimulate the economy and provide people with the means to increase their carbon efficiency. All that governments need do is divide the collected revenue by the number of shares, with half-shares for children, up to two children per family.
Some economists prefer a payroll tax deduction over a dividend, because taxes depress the economy. The problem is that about half of the public are not on payrolls, because of retirement or involuntary unemployment. I suggest that at most 50% of the collected carbon fee should be used for payroll tax deduction.
Cap-and-trade is the antithesis of this simple system. Cap-and-trade is a hidden tax, increasing energy costs, but with no public dividend. Its infrastructure costs the public, who also fund the profits of the resulting big banks and speculators. Cap-and-trade is advantageous only to energy companies with strong lobbyists and government officials who dole out proceeds from pollution certificates to favoured industries.
Fee-and-dividend, in contrast, is a non-tax – on average it is revenue-neutral. The public will probably accept a rise in the carbon fee rate, because their monthly dividend will increase correspondingly. As fee-and-dividend causes fossil fuel energy prices to rise, a series of points will be reached at which various carbon-free energies and carbon-saving technologies are cheaper than fossil fuels plus the fee. The market place will choose the best technology. As time goes on, fossil fuel use will collapse, coal will be left in the ground, and we will have arrived at a clean energy future. A rising carbon fee is essential for a climate solution. But how to achieve a fair international framework?
The critical requirement is that the United States and China agree to apply across-the-board carbon fees, at a relative rate to be negotiated. Why would China agree to a carbon fee? China does not want to be saddled with the problems that attend fossil fuel addiction such as those that plague the United States. Besides, China would be hit extraordinarily hard by climate change. A uniform rising carbon fee is the most economically efficient way for China to limit its fossil fuel dependence.
Copenhagen discussions showed that China and the United States can work together. Europe, Japan, and most developed countries would very probably agree to a similar status to that of the United States. Countries refusing to levy an across-the-board carbon fee can be dealt with via an import duty collected on products from that nation in accord with the amount of fossil fuel that goes into producing the product. The World Trade Organisation already has rules permitting such duties.
The international framework must define how proceeds from import duties are used to assure fairness. Duties on products from developing countries will probably dwarf present foreign aid to those countries. These funds should be returned to developing countries, but distributed so as to encourage best practices, for example, improved women's rights and education that helps control population growth. Fairness also requires that distribution of the funds takes account of the ongoing impacts of climate change. Successful efforts in limiting deforestation and other best practices could also be rewarded.
- Posted in
54 Comments so far
Show AllJames Hansen has it right: cap-and-trade is another casino hustle such as Wall Street is used to playing. The only way people will change their behavior is when their wallets (or purses) are directly affected. Of course, there are players who do not want things to change at all: the purveyors of clean coal and petroleum in particular. They will fight any effort to tax oil at the well head or coal at the mine. In the United States--and elsewhere--the coal and petroleum lobbies will not allow Hansen's scheme to proceed. They will convince voters that they are being taxed unfairly and that jobs will disappear as a result.
At this point in my life, I have decided that democracy (as practiced in the United States) simply cannot solve problems. Scientists who have no ideological agenda need to make decisions, not Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, or Mr. Obama. Such a system could be devised--a system that would seek solutions from many different vantage points--which would not be the same as a dictatorship. However, it will not be achieved in the big states like the US because people think they already have the best system. Funny how we all believe what we want to be true and not what is true.
"I have decided that democracy (as practiced in the United States) simply cannot solve problems."
The u.s. has never been a democracy, designed as a republic,
but I'm in total agreement that problems will never be solved through this perverted system. Capitalism must go. Its flaws are ingrained.
Buck
What would you replace it with? Nothing else has been shown to work half so well.
Aside from which what we have now is not Capitalism.
Well-educated leaders (not politicians) can apply many solutions to social and environmental problems at a small scale. The first thing is to identify outcomes that measure success--an evaluation scheme. The second thing is to apply various models--from the right and left--to the solution of the problems. The winning solutions get expanded, the others get reduced. The point is not to establish one ideology as superior to all the rest, but to solve problems efficiently. With a system like this leaders might actually get respect rather than hatred.
drosera
Good points.
But Capitalism is an economic system, not an ideology or a social system. For instance we use it one way, the Chinese another and the scandanavian countries another.
No other economic system has ever worked half as well that I know of. Perhaps I should have defined it as an economic sysytem as I know some think of it as a social system, which it is not.
Though of course there aer some social systems it cannot function in.
Maybe capitalism is successful in its approach to some problems--small businesses, for example, through competition, can produce and sell goods efficiently, but it is not successful at solving the problems of the poor--such things as healthcare, shelter, taking care of the elderly and the disabled. It isn't always totally successful on a large scale--the Microsoft operating system, for example, is really not the best--in our hearts we all know that. Capitalism does not always select the best system--other principles apply such as competition, advertising, hostile take-overs, extended patents, cronyism, the ability to secure loans, etc.
Capitalism, as interpreted locally, is a possible solution to a number of problems, though. The big government of the USSR was not efficient in providing goods to citizens, nor did it protect the environment. It deserves to lie rotting on the scrap heap of history, but there are other systems, some socialist, which are much more promising. All of them would be tried under the ideal system, and, in Darwinian fashion, only the best would survive.
I would suggest that Capitalism does indeed do well in those other metrics as well. Money is most certainly not the only measure of success in Capitalism. And as you point out when you exclude "physical and mental health--hell, happiness" you are not being sucessful at anything using any system.
My real point aside from ther fundamentally historical one of the unrivaled success of Capitalism is that we do not have Capitalism at the moment. What we have right now is a "Free Trade" robber basron economy. No capitalist syatem can operate as it should without proper controls, laws and oversight. They have been removed. The economy has been set for the benefit of transnationals to the detriment of America and its citizens. Thats what has brought us to this circumstanse.
I noticed TJ or Alcyon or someone brought up the fact that the "good ole days" were not the "good ole days" and thats true. Every generation tends to forget their angst and remember only the good things.
Buit it is true that in the fifties, sixties and seventies it was better. Unions operated for the benefit of their members mostly, business operated for the benefit of its shareholders, workers and country. Education was meant to teach and educate its students not to give them a false "feel good about yourself" and you will learn type of farce. This is part of what has changed.
Given human nature its the only system that has produced across the board benefits so far or produced the most good for most people. But I'd never say its the end of the line. Perhaps something can replace it. But so far...no other system tried is an alternative.
Posted this in the wrong place...
First let us agree that Capitalism is not perfect nor does it always provide the best answer. (your microsoft example is great, Betamax and VHS would be another)
The point is that it bats for average. It hits .333 while every other system, at its best has been a .200 hitter.
"but it is not successful at solving the problems of the poor--such things as healthcare, shelter, taking care of the elderly and the disabled."
Having been in most other countries at this point, I'll assure you that if I have to be poor I'll choose to be poor here. Much better off on the whole.
"but there are other systems, some socialist, which are much more promising."
Could be...but up to this point, there hasn't been a better system, not ever, not anywhere. That is my point.
You cannot separate economics from politics any more than you can separate world problems (like global warming) from politics or economics.
Capitalism dictates a political structure that favors money and property. Whatever the capitalist class allies itself with will prosper. Whatever it opposes will rarely have power in society unless capitalism is not well-established in a society or is overwhelmed by the public.
Similarly, since the goal of any capitalist firm is to continuously make more money, not to please consumers or make the best product, firms will always take the path of shortest resistance to making the most money. If left unchecked, especially in large firms facing marginal returns on improvements or new competitors, corporations will be compelled to rely on extortion, contract and union busting, blackmail, bribery, fraud, or low quality just to keep their profits. In short, capitalism always contains the roots for oligarchy, imperialism, and fascism. If you wish to keep capitalism and democracy, these instincts can only be kept at bay by strong regulations against corporations and vigilance in government (which in democracies, translates into a transparent society with vigilant citizens). Culturally, in the minimal case, the rich must live in fear of the political power of the masses, or in the ideal case, such regulations are considered fair by all sectors of society.
Different nations, of course, will have different kinds of political systems under capitalism if their local capitalists use their allegiance to the (host) nation as their means of maintaining legitimacy with the local people of a nation. (Allegiance to a non-host nation is simply colonial imperialism.) However, since the produced goods are traded globally, capitalists of different nations will have differential success. Cultures more favorable to capitalism (UK, Germany, China, Japan, USA) become more successful amongst the capitalist nations in overall profits. Less profitable countries or sectors, thus, are under constant pressure to adopt more pro-business measures; like mad cow, our global capitalism is self-corrupting and has already ruined most of the world's governments, peoples, and lands. Since we don't have a time machine, overthrow seems likelier than New Deal 2.0 (given that the first one passed only as a concession and business hasn't conceded much of anything in the last 30 years).
I wouldn't be so quick to discredit everything else. After all, modern man has a much longer history without capitalism than with it and I'm not sure capitalism was responsible for the wealth of the last 300 years since mankind also began exploiting coal, oil, and natural gas in the same period (though I do remember someone strongly disagreeing with me on this). Nor would I call the USSR's economy socialist; certainly, it was (over-)planned, but it didn't reflect the will of the average worker.
You are saying, essentially, that capitalism corrupts and that is corrosive towards its competitors (including socialism). But that doesn't mean that it will be more successful than other solutions. After all, who says money has to be the sole measure of success? Why not include some other metrics: physical and mental health--hell, happiness? We need to stop thinking just about the production and distribution of goods--something capitalism does moderately well--not necessarily better than other conceivable systems, though, witness the present recession. Let's think about those things that nurture life, too. Capitalism can be tried as a possible solution--markets do encourage entrepreneurship, perhaps. But it is only one tool in the grab bag.
I'm seperating it from social systems, not political ones. Obviously looking at say Sweden or France, you may have a Capitalist economy (though it doesn't work near as well) and a socialist culture and government.
"In short, capitalism always contains the roots for oligarchy, imperialism, and fascism. If you wish to keep capitalism and democracy, these instincts can only be kept at bay by strong regulations against corporations and vigilance in government (which in democracies, translates into a transparent society with vigilant citizens)."
Absolutely. But so does every other system. Socialism, communism and religious systems are quicker and easier, by far, to beecome dictatorial. We need to replace those systems you mention to bring Capitalism back to America.
Which brings me back to my original point. What would you replace it with. Through out history, no other system comes close to its benefits.
"Nothing else has been shown to work half so well."
See Scandinavia.
Thats a capitalist economic system too.
There is more than one problem with this suggestion. As a scientist, I am aware that we have agendas, just as politicians do. So as bad as the current system is, I am not comfortable with the idea of an intellectual elite running things, a la what Plato envisaged in the Republic.
The only way the problem could be resolved is to impose some sort of controls over the unfettered economic system we have (I do not call it a free-market system because there are no free markets left). But I am not smart enough to know what sort of controls would work.
We need look no farther than the 50's and 60's for what will work. It was the blending of capitalism and socialism that built the middle class and created the push for a fairer and more just society.
Yes you are smart enough to know. You'll know after just a small amount of your own direct experience managing the controls. It's as easy as tending a garden. Anyone can do it. This is why we don't need the elites.
Plato's elite was ideological. He had very definite ideas about what a society should look like. In an ideal world, there would be no ideology. Or rather, every kind of ideology. Those who govern are paid (only reasonably well) to solve problems and possible solutions can come from any direction.
Could such a system evolve into a dictatorship? Yes. Could a democracy evolve into a dictatorship. Yes. I don't know all of the ways protections could be built into a system, but there must be some smart guys out there, some of them toiling on Wall Street, no doubt, who could suggest some measures. We need to start thinking outside the box. Our system was appropriate when we were a nation of small businessmen and farmers connected by the postal service and primitive newspapers, but social and environmental problems have gotten more complex. As a biology teacher in high school for thirty-one years, I have come to doubt that most citizens can comprehend problems, follow arguments, avoid wishful thinking, and hold their elected leaders to the same standard, no matter what party they come from. It is time to conceive a new system that does an end run around biased media, lobbying, cults of personality, deception, and denial of the facts.
This seems very simple, clear, workable, and beneficial for the economy. Plus,it works for the averaage person and reducing CO2. So, the fact that our leaders are NOT adopting this and are sticking with the cap and trade, which favors the fossil fuel industry and the rich B* that run them, then we know our leaders are bought off and we are NOT going to change the tradition of screwing mother nature and therefore, ultimately our selves.
I think it's time to start talking about what needs to be done. There are probably few who can deny climate change with the physical evidence of that so clear to see. The debate on whether or not it's man made just postpones the discussion around concrete steps to take.
There's a host of issues that will need to be approached, like moving agriculture to areas not as badly affected by drought. Entire populations are moving and need to adapt to new environments. Access to water is going to be a major concern for many and flooding a problem for others. Economies are going to have to change. Then there's the threat to bio-diversity.
Let's face it, there must be scenario sketches and plans around what to expect (based on what's obvious and visible), in the hands of all international leaders already. Is the reason nothing is being done the squabble over what caused it?
I'd like to see some forecasts on how climate change is going to affect all parts of the planet. How hard is the US and Europe going to be hit? Is the major impact going to be on developing nations?
How much thinking goes along the lines of this being "an act of god"? Can we really stand by and "let nature take its course"?
Here are some suggestions;
stop burning gasoline to mow grass
stop burning gasoline in toys;
snow mobiles
dirt bikes
jet skis
four wheelers
banish Nascar
greatly reduce air travel
reduce auto use
end military endevours
walk and/or ride bikes
turn down thermostats
run fans not a.c.
anyone can add to this list
Eat locally
reduce your meat intake
grow a garden
stop killing millions of trees for christmas
walk more
don't use the drive thru
etc etc
There are many small things each individual can do that taken together can have a large impact.
Since gasoline does not account for the majority of fossil fuel burned:
insulating and caulking the house
wind power/solar
turn off the lights whenever possible
efficient furnaces
geothermal heat for homes
efficient electric motors for industry
an intelligent grid system that can route energy efficiently to where it is needed
rapid mass transport rather than autos/air travel
The best part about your suggestions is that they each pay for themselves. While we must continue to put pressure on our so called leaders we must also step up to the plate ourselves. There are a ton of painless options out there for each of us to adopt.Doing nothing but complaining is no longer acceptable
All these suggestions above are based on the assumption of anthropological climate change. Governments seem to be stuck on the dispute between the deniers of that and it's proponents. So yeah, we can all individually do our bit to ease emissions, but the impact of climate change already being felt by many, and anticipated, needs to be addressed already.
But what about the inherent problems in some of your suggestions like:
Wind Power/Solar cost and where to put it, cost of Geo Thermal Heat, mass transport only works well in urban areas, etc?
I don't mean you are wrong, just that there are inherent problems that must be solved for implementation.
What about the cost of flooding whole valleys, levelling whole mountains and disposing of nuclear waste. These are costs that must enter into the equation when comparing the cost of wind,solar and geothermal to hydro,coal and nuclear power generation not to mention the pollution each generates.
Mass transit can also be used to move people and goods cross country, cross state as well as cross town. As well since the majority of the population is centred in urban environments there is a greater bang for your buck in mass transit.
The Mad Loon
I was thinking more of the costs in comparison to other power sources available now. And wind power/solar are not without costs (enviornmental) they also generate pollution.
Full agreement on mass transit within an Urban area. I live rural so I was thinking of it a bit differently. Useless in our area.
Too many unanswered questions in my own mind I think. For example how much emission/enviornmental damage would be avoided if rural or FM roads were concrete rather than asphalt? Better roads, smaller cars?
Just as you only put a road where you can put it , thus with anything else.
Theoretically, capntrade could work well, but in reality it almost certainly would be very inefficient. Hanson's plan is the best solution that I know of.
Excellent idea, and a genuinely market-based approach. It'll be hard for even the market fundamentalists to oppose.
How do we push this idea to the forefront of the climate change debate? As far as I can see, no one in the scientific - let alone the policy-making - community has endorsed this idea, yet.
We can change that, but we need to start NOW: speak up, spread the word, meet, organize.
This seems to be a fairly honest article about where things stand. For a change it admits some of the Utopian and unobtainable goals are just that.
Cap and Trade was always a farce and unworkable.
"agreements to "cap" emissions, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the imagined Copenhagen Protocol, are worthless scraps of paper"
They are exactly that.
Where I disagree a bit is on International agreements, this whole thing seems to be from a top down standpoint insead of a bottom up approach, which as I see it is the only thing that will work.
You can't go to a meeting and make agreements for your country on things like this unless your country agrees with you. Trying to impose anything will always end in failure.
Maybe things like the Loon suggests to start? Perhaps a more realistic approach to change? I mean how do you do it?
In my opinion the poisoning of the atmosphere is a symptom of our sick society. We, as a civilization, value money above all else. The evidence is everywhere.
Fossil fuels are "cheap". Very few will spend money on solar panels and windmills and other technologies for heat and power when all you have to do is pay a bill each month. And all those technological gimmicks also require huge expenditures of energy to produce so there isn't much of a saving there in terms of carbon.
Our entire way of life is the problem. Our way of life, our civilization, our "developed" cultures......all destructive to the environment.
The solution is not to be found within the confines of our civilization. And no one, except me and a few others, are going to live off the power grid, growing our own food, hunting, burning wood (and growing trees to replace it), canning on wood heated stoves instead of freezing food, heating water for showers with wood, etc, etc.
It's just not gonna happen.
Mother nature will solve the "human" problem.
It won't be pretty.
"And no one, except me and a few others, are going to live off the power grid, growing our own food, hunting, burning wood (and growing trees to replace it), canning on wood heated stoves instead of freezing food, heating water for showers with wood, etc, etc."
Everyone couldn't do that, not enough room! Thats a lot of wood burning too.
Surely there is a compromise answer in there somewhere?
"Mother nature will solve the 'human' problem."
Considering our hominid ancestors survived thousands of years of ice ages with populations far smaller than our own, I doubt that. Of course, dwindling resources and the attendant wars and famines could ignite a new feudal age (ending most of the current civilizations and kill billions), but only nuclear/biological war (which likely would occur if a resource war occurs) could end our species within the short term.
Plus, I disagree strongly with such fatalism. There is no reason why man should assent to his own collective suicide (even if we can't ultimately survive against an ever-warming sun, meteor strike, proton decay, or whatever doom you name). Besides, why should we wish for the punishment of the majority who lived in relative harmony with nature and are trying to keep alive such traditions today, just because the richest 15% of the world are stealing their land only to give toxins in return?
"And no one, except me and a few others, are going to live off the power grid, growing our own food, hunting, burning wood (and growing trees to replace it), canning on wood heated stoves instead of freezing food, heating water for showers with wood, etc, etc.
It's just not gonna happen."
The supermarket and computer/TV won't always remain operational. People will join you or starve.
However, we can't simply throw away every relic of "civilization". Much of the science garnered could certainly help with life and should be improved (or at least be maintained). Much of the decayed infrastructure, even if built with the legacy of fossil fuels and empire, can still be salvaged for parts or maintained (to a lesser degree without our current massive energy network), especially if the state collapses around us.
It is telling that Hansen had to use a foreign newspaper to publish his opinions.
James Hansen doesn't "need" a foreign newspaper: see the New York Times op-ed page December 7, 2009.
Dr Hansen made a very telling observation in his sixth paragraph: "As far as the planet is concerned, agreements to "cap" emissions, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the imagined Copenhagen Protocol, are worthless scraps of paper. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned somewhere. This fact helps define a solution to the climate problem. Yes, people must make changes in the way they live. Countries must cooperate. Matters as intractable as population must be included." He goes on further, of course.
The crux of the issue remains however: climate change is, in the words of Paul Kingsnorth (http://www.ecoshock.net/eshock09/ES_091218_Show_LoFi.mp3) an expression of how we live, the economic model that has gathered us collectively to its teats to suckle, oblivious to the waste products our succourance results in.
There are no easy ("convenient") answers to provide or to consider: it is our economy that kills us and kills the biosphere. Profits have achieved greater status of value than life itself, in all of its complex diversity; in all of its diverse complexity; in all of its complex possibilities for emergence. We have participated, directly and indirectly, in the commodification of the vast array of ecological services (classified as "externalities" for corporate budgets) and the summation of accumulated energy that is expressed in everything that currently lives. There is only one universal order of value: the amount of summative solar energy that accumulates within each existing object and which engineers each ecological service. When these complex outputs of solar energy are taken into account (what HT Odum called "emergy"), we find ourselves with a universal economics of ecological and economic value: the emjoule (emJ). Instead, we celebrate an abstraction - a gold standard that no longer even applies - the gold will not be given to the bearer of a piece of treasury-issued paper. We lack gold, and we lack a universal system of measure of real wealth. Hence, ecosystems are evaluated according to their practical material wealth, and NOT according to the amount of irreplaceable work that has been invested along the line of natural production that now culminates in the object under investigation - a rain forest, a collection of seeds, a watershed, a woodland, a neighbourhood, a family.
Hansen's thesis is quite correct, although the distractions with cap and trade and other economic derivatives are tangetially appropriate, he refrains from challenging the great elephant in the living room: the capitalist growth economy model of development and its rubric of progress. Once we rid ourselves of these limiting factors, then we can begin to assess where we are and what we need to be doing.
We have, hitherto, surrendered our values to that which amounts to the largest prize of capital accumulation. There is no future in such travesties of holistic and ecological justice. No longer can there be any justification to support such outpourings of bondage of these models of destruction that adorn the world and demarcate the high water mark of human progress. We need a different model of progress. We need different leadership values to support our transition; we need different narratives of progress and of value, different heroes, different models to which we aspire.
We require little short of a new narrative within which we can weave fresh possibilities for us to be living in conjunction with the expression of natural values - the promulgation of diversification, and other ecologically-inspired ways of living as Goldsmith (1996) and Capra (1982), Odum & Odum (2001) and others have suggested.
REFS:
Capra, F. (1982) The Turning Point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turning_Point_(book)
Goldsmith, E. (1976). "The Way". Totnes, Devon: Themis Books
Odum, H.T. and Odum, E.C. (2001). "A prosperous way down" http://www.amazon.com/Prosperous-Way-Down-pbk/dp/0870819089
What we need is a return to the lifestyle of the natives of north america. Living only off the dividends of nature. Turning away from a technology based civilization to a nature based civilization. We don't need heroes. We need symbols of honor and integrity. Leaders who shun wealth and ambition in the name of service to the people. We don't need martyrs, we need to never speak the names of the dead so that future generations don't seek vengeance in the name of dead leaders.
We need to teach our children that the use of fossil fuels is a sin against humanity.
We need to breed out the genes of the aggressive, greedy, selfish humans that have come to dominate this planet by teaching our children that greed and selfishness is evil and leads to a self-destructive world such as the one we now have.
We need to start with ourselves. Stop looking to governments. Stop looking to leaders. Stop blaming everyone else.
Start looking to yourselves for leadership and accountability.
"The difficulty is that fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, if the price does not include the damage they do to human health, the planet, and the future of our children."
When the price of fossil fuel does not include those damages it's still not so cheap in comparison to renewable energy. Renewable energy methods have been around for a century or more. But over the past century, USan elites have sunk untold gargantuan amounts of our resources into the technical and geopolitical aspects of fossil production, with an indefensible agenda.
These resources lost to fossil production could have instead been devoted to peaceful, clean, renewable energy. This cost has been referred to as "opportunity cost", rarely cited by the pundits. These "opportunity costs" have made renewable energy look expensive and fossil look cheap.
Much of the resources that USan elites have sunk into fossil production has been public subsidies, against the will of the people, thus a gargantuan crime perpetrated for almost an entire century.
Another chunk of "resources" is the funny munny the elites bestow upon each other for "strategeric" projects that benefit the whole cabal. They don't throw funny munny at anything such as renewable energy that could contribute to the people's independence given easy production at the local level.
So the fossil gets the investment, and is made to look cheap as anything will in a "supply-side" over-production (dumping) scheme (yes dumping is against the antitrust laws - most USan elites should be jailed for supporting the "great supply side dump", including most Demoks).
This is good common sense, to set a direct carbon price, so that carbon energy sources are no longer cheap.
Many people have suggested it as the most honest way.
All other indirect schemes have been ineffective or corrupted.
Carbon energy sources, once mined and consumed,mostly end up in the atmosphere for millenia.
There is no large enough once only payment by indirect offset or funny money that can meet the true ongoing global cost.
Applying a direct carbon source tax does not preclude applying other solutions as well, especially if wisely done using the income from direct carbon tax.
Since this is a global survival emergency for the human race, all measures must be tried and tested, as many at once as possible. Slam all the economic brakes!
James Hansen is a great scientist and a hero of the biosphere, but his political logic eludes me. He celebrates the disgraceful failure at Copenhagen as opening the way for his remedy to the scourge of fossil fuels. Notably absent from his article, however, is any explanation as to why Copenhagen failed. And if our rulers have abandoned even the fig leaf of "cap and trade," what makes him think that they will go for his "fee and dividend" plan? What politician is going to win election in contemporary America by saying, with Dr. Hansen, 'I'm going to raise your energy costs, but if you're a good little conservationist I'll pay you back'? Imagine the demagoguery that would issue from the drill-baby-drill crowd, especially the Teabagger-Beck-Palin contingent!
".....Imagine the demagoguery that would issue from the drill-baby-drill crowd, especially the Teabagger-Beck-Palin contingent!....."
***
I know. [sigh]
We have to GO AROUND them now.
Let us proceed.
Whoa...
Published on Sunday, December 27, 2009 by Politico.com
Senate Democrats to W.H.: Drop Cap-and-Trade
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/27-0
Excerpt:
.....Earlier this month, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) introduced a bill that would replace cap and trade with a system that would set a price on carbon dioxide emissions and return all the revenue to consumers, instead of industry..... END excerpt.
***
Well, OK.
Let's get on the phones.
:-)
P.S. GREAT discussion here! And, once again, thank you to Dr. Hansen.
My impressions of Jim Hansen's editorial are mixed.
First, the issues with the Kyoto protocol might be addressed by fixing the treaty- which is legally binding- versus scrapping it.
Second, his article fails to adequately address the real issue of climate debt- and the developed world's funding of mitigation and conservation strategies in the developing world. Writing the issue of climate debot off as unworkable is unacceptable and not helpful.
Third, the concept of a fee/dividend or carbon tax is sound and seems more workable than cap and trade (with carbon offsets).
Fourth, his article is myopically focused on climate change and not broader issues of social and economic justice as well as other encroaching environmental issues such as drought, water quality and food security. He also fails to appreciate the military implications of current environmental policy and the contribution of climate change to economic and political collapse and destabilization, i.e., war.
Finally, he fails to fully appreciate (at least in this article) the systemic failure of the United States and other counties to address this and other crisis. The fundamental issue of a global economic system without global democracy are at the root of the issues we face. Until this is addressed, it is hard to see the right approaches being pursued by developed world governments (the Haves).
Jim Hansen is a brilliant and brave man who fully understands the dangers of climate change. His knowledge of the science of climate change is sound and unquestioned by the large majority of climate scientists. His undetstanding of what is required for social and economic change on the scale required to successfully address the issue of climate change is somewhat limited- at least based on my reading of this article.
Have you read his book, "Storms of My Grandchildren", which came out the first week of December?
I think you might find that Hansen is a little more aware of the "systemic" issues to which you refer than you currently judge him to be.
;-)
No I have not read this. I probably should- my opinions were based on the reading of this editorial/article. What does he say regarding some of the issues I raised?
The Kyoto Protocol *expires* in 2012 - there is no option of 'fixing' it.
Climate debt is a non-issue if the planet heats up by 6 deg C and Civilization is ended. "Mitigation strategies" is a red herring - if the CO2 is not kept out of the atmosphere, poor countries flooding is going to be the least of the world's concerns in a few decades. Hansen is focusing on avoiding the trajectory which the world is on - which leads to Disaster for everyone.
"...encroaching environmental issues such as drought, water quality and food security."
This is all included in Climate Change. Read some of Hansen's papers from the past 30 years - drought, rivers drying up (such as Himalaya glacier-fed rivers supplying India and China with fresh water), agriculture zones moving drastically for the first time since the Holocene - this is all probable results of just a few degrees C of *average* planetary warming.
Hansen is talking about what must be done to avoid the carbon getting into the atmosphere - he's not going to offer a redesigned economic/political/military/social system to do it. Get real.
Climate Threat to the Planet,
by Jim Hansen:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf
Any proposal that comes out should be judged, as with any law, with the following questions, in the order of priority:
1. Is it fair?
2. Does it work?
3. Can it pass?
My answers to these:
1. Any proposal that places more power and money into the hands of the elite at the expense of the poor cannot be allowed. That's why cap-and-trade and an unweighted (regressive) carbon tax must be opposed. Taxing the source of fossil fuel production seems fairer if the proceeds are returned, but I'd need to see more specifics.
2. As of now, Hansen's plan doesn't work. We first need a government that can be trusted not to misuse public funds, able to inspect everyone (it would be easier if it were done by community on consent), and impartially punish offenders (unlike our current IRS).
3. Considering there's already a bill calling for this, I'll wait and see, though I doubt it highly.
Reasonable suggestions.
Progressives, environmentalists, human beings living on this planet:
51% (32,564 million tons of C02) of annual greenhouse gas emissions are derived from livestock.
Are you all doing your part and substituting healthy proteins in place of animal products?
Please see www.worldwatch.org/ww/livestock.