REFERRING TO: * Nah, first put the screws to ourselves, and if necessary the rest of the hemisphere.
Heres the argument as I understand it: We have invented a game called Carbon Offsets. But to be effective, it really requires everyones cooperation. Unfortunately, we cant get them to play. They just dont get it! Here, Im referring to us being the USA and they being China, and the game is something like the Kyoto Protocol, which China and India are exempt from many of the rules. Fortunately, we can get them to play by setting a good example. The USA should TIT first in hopes that they TAT back. Since we believe so strongly in our convictions that our proposed rules of play should be followed by all players cooperatively, we can entice China to play by merely playing solitaire first. They will ultimately like the outcome of our game so much that they will beg us to let them play too. Well, if thats true, then it should also be true for a finer resolution, such as those US citizens that believe in the game versus those that havent quite made the leap of faith. So I propose that we politically self-partition of our population. Those US citizens that wish play register online with the government. Next, we create a big government regulatory department of lawyers that enforce just those that have registered to be measured for their carbon output and to buy carbon offset certificates. In time, the other citizens will eventually register too. And this will cascade up to include the entire Earths population. Those that saw the light early have proof that they were smarter, and are entitled to the bragging rights that they helped make the world a better place or everyone. But if the argument turns out to be wrong, and the game is just another utopian ideal (i.e. a system in which a few defectors can spoil the whole lot and which must spend enormous amounts of energy suppressing them) then at least the adverse effects generated by those that improperly put the screws on themselves are confined to just themtruly a sincere hedging of risk. Also Phil, could you clarify what you meant by The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply. Assuming I understand it right, doesnt the distributed price system do that already? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:34 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry There's some humor in this of course... black market money does at least travel in real suite cases, and black market electrons do look quite alike on the common carrier, but electrons all have lawyers to solve that sort of thing don't they??? ______ The dilemma that conservation (by one group) actually stimulates waste (by another group) is the way I like to frame the core problem, I have just never understood why people advocate personal restraint in resource use, like water, as a response to overwhelming societal waste of the same resource. Sure, it's hard to pull together any whole system problem statement or model for response, but just ignoring the difference seems to be most everyone's favorite solution. ______ The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply... and not surprisingly, that requires some systems thinking we haven't done yet. Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Howard Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:56 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in debates: o Electrons cross both state and country borders. Theres a whole futures industry on buying electricity for speculative market demand. For example, California in <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0> 2000. o All electrons look the same. Its impossible to look at an electron on the grid and say, hey, that electron came from a coal fired plant in Russia and that one came from solar cells in Tucson. We have the same problem with shady black markets that move tons of cash. At least cash comes in suitcases owned by people and moves far slower than the speed of light. And, since the grid uses alternating current, electrons really only move about most 3000 miles before they make a 180 turn round trip back to where they started from. Its the electromagnetic field that crosses borders. If we raise the price of our electricity through carbon offsets, then up goes the demand of some other defecting countrys coal-produced force field. Theyd make much more off the market differential than any CO2 subsidy theyd get after the administration took its share. This recursively works for all products that depend on electricity, such as aluminum cans, airplanes, and vacations. Right now, the US can produce petroleum-driven electricity far cleaner, cheaper and efficiently than any third-world country. If the goal is clean, wouldnt we rather get our electricity from us than them? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:54 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward zero (real 2nd law). Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Howard > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we > might be able to compete. :-) > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > > growth! > So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. > Time to spend > some money on figuring out how to do it! > Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by > 2025. [1] > The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 > [2], and > the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in > China) are at > about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for > dozens of > square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China > builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep > doing that for 100 years [6]. > > Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by > taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the > development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration > technology (etc). > > [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf > [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html > [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html > [6] > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend> ly_article.aspx?id=17963 > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
