I dislike rules too, and if we don't change our ways soon, we may indeed nurture the very circumstances that will feed the rise of one or more dictators who seek to impose global rules upon the world with the sole intent to cement their grip over society, rather than to put in place the effective policies that we need instead.
Yes, we need a global commitment to reduce emissions. I see that as a given, but this doesn't mean global dictatorship. Instead, it means that we need to agree on reduction targets and establish ways to deal with disputes between countries. I suggest to have an arbitration body to turn to for disputes, much like the WTO now handles trade disputes. There actually are negotiations on this, to be completed in Copenhagen in 2009. At the same time, I believe that local communities should decide the technicalities of how exactly they are going to reduce their emissions and meet their targets. There are many ways to, say, produce clean and safe energy; wind turbines may be attractive in some areas, solar energy may become more prominent elsewhere, while yet another area may predominantly exploit geothermal power; many areas may also prefer to import electricity. Similarly, hydrogen may well become the dominant way to power ships, while cars will predominantly drive on battery power in future. Instead of prescribing a specific technology, government should merely insist that alternatives be clean and safe. In my view, a framework of feebates is the most effective way to facilitate reductions. Feebates have a double impact, by imposing a fee on whatever needs to be discouraged, while using the proceeds to fund rebates on better alternatives. Market mechanisms can best sort out which products deserve to get rebates. Feebates respect consumer choice and optimize market mechanisms, which further increases their effectiveness. Feebates are most effective when applied locally, i.e. by using the proceeds of fees collected in an area to support the better alternatives that are supplied in that same area. That way, most money will be used to make changes where they are needed most. Finally, fees are best calculated as a percentage of the price charged by the retailer to the consumer, This increases the effectiveness of the policy by minimizing bureaucratic administrative overhead. Over the years, I have proposed a number of feebates, including: - a 10% fee on sales of new gasoline cars, with proceeds used to fund local rebates on zero emission cars; - a 10% fee on sales of fossil fuel, with proceeds used to fund rebates on purchase and installation of local facilities that produce energy in safe and clean ways; - a 10% fee on sales of building and construction work that used polluting concrete (i.e. that contributes to global warming), with rebates on local purchases of clean concrete; - a 10% fee on sales of fertilizers, with rebates on local sales of agrichar (or biochar); and - a 10% fee on sales of meat, with rebates and vouchers on vegan-organic meals served in local restaurants. Furthermore, government support for polluters must be terminated - instead, government should support clean and safe alternatives. There are many things government could change, e.g. town planners could help to set up vegan-organic restaurants in communities without roads. Also, deregulation of taxi services would allow more cars to take paying passengers on board. Remember that, not in the previous century, but the century before that, there already were electric taxis in New York! The electric grid should welcome people who get electric cars and who install solar panels, by introducing differential pricing and two-way metering. Each community should be discussing what policies work best for them and work on that. Such policies do not impose a single system of rules - instead, they celebrate diversity and that's what makes such policies so effective! Cheers! Sam Carana On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:04 AM, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think, very sadly, we need new rules Sam. I dislike rules quite > often, but we can't go on playing stupid 'tragedy of the commons' > games under some false spirit of anything goes and diversity being > made more important than common cause. > > > > On 7 Sep, 04:42, "Sam Carana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Diversity constitutes reality, we know that for a fact. >> >> Those who have shared my epistemological contemplations will be >> familiar with the fact that I believe that DIVERSITY is fundamental to >> everything that exists. In short, diversity constitutes reality, as it >> always has and as will always be the case. >> >> Those who are smart and new here may ask how I can know this for a >> fact. Indeed, how can diversity be rhymed with the singularity >> inherent in facts? Indeed, how can I write the word "fact" in above >> sentence, before even mentioning diversity? >> >> In fact, I have always accepted facts, I actually like to start with >> the facts and focus on reality. What I do NOT accept is the idea that >> facts were inherently singular and therefore excluded diversity. Those >> who know me, know that I do start with the facts and stick with the >> facts, while all the time believing that diversity is fundamental to >> reality. But let's have a look at an example, perhaps that will >> clarify things. >> >> Imagine a motorcycle driver, young and reckless, stupid and brave, >> driving fast through the night on a lonely country road. The driver >> chases a car that manages to just stay ahead, by similarly driving at >> speeds far too fast for such a windy road. At the next curve, as the >> motorcycle starts overtaking the car, two lights appear from the >> opposite direction. The motorcycle driver has only a split-second to >> decide to either slow down or keep overtaking. Naturally, the >> motorcycle driver, in such a crucial decision, will resort to the >> facts. >> >> What do the facts say? Fact is that motorcycle drivers are prone to >> fatal accidents, a good many of which are head-on collisions. Fact is >> that it's dangerous, often even prohibited to overtake a car in a >> curve. Fact is that motorcycles constitutes a small minority of >> vehicles, so the chance is small that the two lights approaching from >> the opposite direction are two motorcycles. The chance is even smaller >> that two motorcycle would - stupidly - drive next to each other on a >> windy country road in the night, instead of one behind the other. >> >> So, what goes through the head of the motorcyclist while overtaking >> the car? There may be a tiny chance that the approaching two lights >> are of two motorcyclists. So, there is a tiny chance to continue to >> overtake the car, and stay in between these two motorcyclists without >> causing accidents. But the probability is low, in fact, there's a >> bigger chance that the two lights from a car, or even a bus or a >> truck. >> >> Was there an emergency that justified taking such risks? What exactly >> are the odds and the risks? Is there time to contemplate such >> questions when one's survival depends on a split-second decision? Of >> course, we all know the answer and any mature motorcycle driver knows >> it too. We know what to do, not so much because we were in possession >> of all the facts, We know what to do, not so much because we did >> explore all alternatives, exhaustively testing them and proved them to >> be wrong. Instead, we know what to do, because experience and maturity >> tells us what to do. >> >> Similarly, we've got to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We >> know that for a fact. Global warming is a fact and there IS no >> alternative but to reduce emissions. This conclusion is not in >> conflict with the diversity that is inherent to reality. We simply do >> not have the luxury to first explore the alternative and await proof >> that temperatures will indeed rise with catastrophic results. We do >> not have that option. We know that global warming is taking place and >> we know that we must act now. That conclusion is fully in agreement >> with the principle that diversity is fundamental to reality. We know >> that we must act now to reduce emissions, we know that for a fact - >> wisdom, experience and maturity tells us so. >> >> Cheers! >> I am Sam Carana, and I like to start with facts and focus on reality. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
