Gents: I think you are on the wrong track. Incentives are intended to change behavior. One does not pay victims to continue to be victims. One pays the perpetrator to quit perpetrating the bad act. So, one penalizes a person who lives in the flood plain the increased amount needed in the insurance pool to pay for his damages when the flood comes. An *incentive* to prevent his home from flooding would be to give him a low cost loan to build above the flood plain.
Hence, who's behavior do you want to alter. Surely the person living in the flood plain is not the person who's behavior you want to alter, at least with regard to carbon emissions. He may suffer the consequences, but he is not (in the main) the cause of the problem. The correct question is: Who would make money out of geoengineering, and is now causing the problem? Not merely who would benefit from it, but who would actually have an incentive to create wealth out of it. That would be the folks working on planetary scale carbon sequestration. I don't see anyone making money out of SRM. Hence, if you want an incentive for SRM, you need to link it to something else that will make money. Begin from this point for your discussion. David. On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > Perhaps we should try insurance companies, or even better, reinsurance. > They are interested in avoiding disasters, however they are caused. Does > anybody have good contacts? > > I have a particular interest in avoiding sea level rise, tidal surges and > high precipitation floods, living by tidal Thames. Hey, what about the > former mayor, Ken Livingston? (The new mayor wouldn't be interested.) > > Cheers from Chiswick > > John > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] ; Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2008 4:22 PM > *Subject:* [geo] Re: Cap and Trade Haters Recommend Incentivizing Geo > > Hi David—Your proposal is just the reason why there is resistance to > geoengineering. The idea is to not have geoengineering slow the needed rapid > reduction in GHG emissions, but to be in addition to it—for given how > rapidly the environment is changing we will need to have geoengineering as > well as aggressive mitigation. > > We really need to find another alternative to incentivizing > geoengineering—for example, having funding for it come out of what would > otherwise need to be going to defending the coasts against sea level rise—so > like an insurance premium of coastal homeowners—you only get insurance if > you live along the coasts if you pay an additional amount for > geoengineering. > > Mike MacCracken > > > On 12/12/08 9:13 AM, "David Schnare" <[email protected]> wrote: > > You would link it to carbon emissions , allowing greater emissions in > direct trade with investment on mass scale carbon sequestration and a > premium (lesser but still real emissions allowances) for X years for SRM. > > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]> wrote: > > How would you "incentivize" investment in geoengineering? > > http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0812/S00286.htm > > *Coalition Warns Governments Against Emissions Cap > **Friday, 12 December 2008, 3:33 pm > Press Release: New Zealand Business Roundtable* > > EMBARGOED UNTIL 1:00PM FRIDAY 12 DECEMBER > > *Climate Change Coalition Warns Governments Against Global Cap on > Emissions > * > As the eleven thousand participants in the United Nations Climate Change > Conference descend on Poznan, Poland, this week, a coalition of 50 civil > society organisations from 38 countries is warning governments against > opting for strategies that would "do little to protect humanity against the > threat of climate change but would drastically increase the threat of global > economic catastrophe." > > The Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (www.csccc.info < > http://www.csccc.info/> ) of which the New Zealand Business Roundtable is > a member, has today released a new report with a stark message to > governments about the economic flow-on effect, particularly on poorer > countries, of adopting a global cap on emissions. > > Describing the idea as "economic lunacy", the report's author, Professor > Julian Morris, said a global cap would divert resources into "low carbon" > technologies and away from more productive uses. > > "This would slow economic growth and harm the ability of the poor to > address the real problems they face every day, such as diseases, water > scarcity, and inadequate nutrition", said Professor Morris. > > The report canvases policy options available to governments and concludes > that adaptation, coupled with improving the institutions that enable > economic growth, is likely to be the best response to gradual warming. It > further suggests that one approach to addressing the remote but possible > threat of catastrophic warming would be to incentivise investment in > geoengineering, and advises governments 'hell bent' on limiting carbon > emissions to consider a tax on emissions rather than a cap and trade scheme. > > > Business Roundtable executive director Roger Kerr said the report, titled > *Which Policy to Address Climate Change? *was a timely and valuable > addition to the debate on what constitutes an appropriate response to > climate change. > > "We have long held the view, as set out in the attached submission, that a > cap and trade scheme of the type being considered in New Zealand would > impose heavy costs on households, businesses and the economy. It is also > likely to discourage investment and lead to losses in business confidence > and jobs. > > "It is to be hoped that common sense will prevail in Poznan and that a few > European ministers will not succeed in imposing further pain on countries > already struggling with much more serious problems", said Mr Kerr. > > > ENDS > > > > > > > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" 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/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
