On 9/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> I see where you are coming from.
>
> Germany or Denmark are countries that put considerable emphasis on
> climate change, yet neither has a carbon tax as such.
>
> What I am trying to answer is the question why that is so.
I must defer to you on this, as I am very unlikely to have as much
understanding of these cases as do you. I must say, though, that I
don't greatly care. My interest is prescriptive, not descriptive. I
would like to know how we can cope with our predicament.
Given that to first order, the carbon problem is cumulative, I think
it is absolutely inescapable that not all the fossil fuels can be
mined, and that the sooner the cost is paid the better. Unfortunately,
this means some coal will stay in the ground forever, which is most
incovenient for people who have invested in coal resources in good
faith (albeit arguably decreasingly goodness of faith).
Should other fossil resources be left in the ground and an equivalent
amount of coal recovered? This makes little sense in a global
perspective, because the amount of energy released per unit of
environmental damage is dramatically worse for coal than elsewhere.
Therefore I think coal must be discouraged, vigorously, everywhere,
forever, and starting soon; this is not to say abruptly discontinued,
just predictably and consistently discouraged. I don't know how
existing political structures can accommodate this, but an increasing
per-unit carbon tax seems best simply because it is the simplest
representation of the damage. Policies that promote coal or
differentially discourage other carbon sources are shortsighted and in
my opinion erroneous.
> As happens, personally I'd favour energy policies like those in France.
> Replacing coal with nuclear should cut world CO2 emissions something
> like 30 or 40%. High gasoline taxes might cut US transportation demand
> in half. I do find it instructive to look at French per capita
> emissions compared to other countries.
I am, frankly, surprised to find us in agreement regarding the
near-term prescription.
However, I believe we do have some fundamental disagreements on how to
think about this problem, so I am somewhat surprised that we agree on
what to do about it.
...
> That [5 %] may not sound like much, and it is not, if people were convinced
> that the survival of mankind was at stake.
Well, getting people to understand what is going on is the nut of the problem.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
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/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
