Mike, et al: I believe in markets doing a more efficient job than governments, with the potential exception of true public goods. Geoengineeering does not fit the definition of public good, and thus should be subject to pure market incentives.
Mike is also using a "code" word - "mitigation". Mitigation used to mean that which reduces the harm from something. Now it just means carbon emissions reduction. As geoengineering is not allowed to be considered adaptation by the same people that say it isn't mitigation, it becomes necessary to split out the mitigation and adaptation elements from geoengineering. Thus, planetary scale carbon sequestration, which is geoengineering, is also a form of adaptation, and in the old world when English was a standard language, carbon sequestration would also be a form of mitigation. Cap and trade or a carbon tax will provide all the incentive needed for carbon sequestration. Shunning and embarassment will help a little too, as we have begun to see from the coal fired power plant and big oil people. As for SRM. It is an orphan at this point, just as some want it to be. The market incentive would favor big carbon to pay for research into it as a means of forestalling the most draconian elements of cap and trade. Those living next to the ocean face a free-rider problem and an income distribution disparity. For those of you living in nice big homes next to the ocean or estruaries, build dikes or elevate your buildings. That will be your least expensive private market option. You can probably afford it. If, however, you can get someone else to foot the bill for SRM, then you are a free rider and a cheapskate to boot. For those of us who live in tar paper shacks on the beach and can't afford anything but being a cheapskate, please dispose of our bodies in an honorable manner. d. On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear David-- > > My suggestion was intended to discourage dangerous behavior, which building > in the flood plain is (so David, yes, I do want to alter the behavior of > those living in imminent danger). The US Govt has been subsidizing such > reckless behavior by providing flood insurance. That should stop—and is > under some circumstances (like you can only make one claim—not a second one > after your rebuilt house gets washed away). Adding a fee to those living in > such areas to fund geoengineering would be a disincentive to live > there—basically, by paying for geoengineering, they would be paying for an > increased likelihood of not being flooded out (so paying to lower a risk). > Giving a person support for a loan to build elsewhere is fine for that > person, but then they sell their present home less expensively and more > people move into it—one has to make the cost of buildings in the flood plain > much higher so no one will choose to live there. > > In that a major criticism of geoengineering has been that it would > encourage continued emissions, funding it in a way that allows continued > emissions would justify the criticism. Geoengineering needs to be done to > reduce impacts (making it a substitute for mitigation basically passes on > the obligation and costs for geoengineering to many future generations, so I > think raises very serious ethical issues), so seek funding from those who > would benefit from its implementation, like especially those living at the > coastal edge whose risk of flooding would grow more slowly. [I should add > that virtually all of us would be experiencing the benefits of reduced > impacts, which is why society as a whole should be choosing to fund this]. > > To tie it to mitigation instead, as David suggests, perhaps one should > offer it as a credit against the damages that future lawsuits might impose > on the polluting industries (well, also on all of us as we al do > contribute), or that may be imposed on developed nations as a result of > claims by developing nations. Again, this suggests society as a whole should > be the supporter of such efforts. > > Mike > > > On 12/12/08 12:26 PM, "David Schnare" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>> > > *To:* [email protected] ; Alvia Gaskill > <mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>> > > *Cc:* Geoengineering > <mailto:[email protected]<[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] < > http://[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] < > http://[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/> <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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
