On Jul 23, 2:07 pm, "Don Libby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "CobblyWorlds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
> To: "globalchange" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:53 AM
> Subject: [Global Change: 1928] Re: Is a 2 degree target realistic?
>
> > Before we even get to the issue of persuading the Chinese and Indian
> > populations (together with millions elswhere) that they need to stop
> > aspiring to the sort of carbon intensive energy wasteful lives we in
> > the "developed" world currently live. We need to persuade people in
> > countries like the UK that we need to change the way we live.
>
> Why "change the way we live" rather than "change the amount of coal we
> burn"? To start by saying we must do something as difficult or impossible
> as "change the way we live" will delay progress even longer, so let's start
> by saying we must do something relatively easy: "tax coal".
>
> Do you think it will be easier or faster to persuade people to change the
> way they live, or to persuade people to build new nuclear power stations
> rather than new coal stations? Similarly, will it be easier or faster to
> persuade India or China to build no new power stations than to build new
> nuclear stations instead of new coal stations?
>
> > century. Furthermore in terms of EROEI surely coal is the cheapest bet
> > for an alternative base energy supply as gas/oil deplete.
>
> That is why we must change the price of coal: vote to raise a carbon
> emission tax and reinvest revenues in low-emission alternatives or CO2
> sequestration facilities.
>
> -dl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not denying that it's worth making the effort, my reason for
stopping driving and changing the way I live is because it's the right
thing to do. I don't have kids - but I have nephews and I like the
Landscape of the Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales. It's all very
well and good people mumbling "well it's only change" but I like
what's there now - maybe that's what comes of hitting my 40s.
And I'm not denying we might be able to take the edge.
But even with something like taxing coal: We might take the edge off
the rate of emissions growth but will anything short of a change of
direction seriously attack emissions. And what about the shift towards
a global free market - will industry not just move to countries that
do not implement this tax? If we're talking a global tax - will it not
be negotiated down to a token level by virtue of the importance of
coal to India and China's plans for development. If Developing nations
are exempted would there not have to be taxation on imported goods, to
account for emissions exportation to low/no C tax economies?
I just don't think this is realistic, but I must admit to coming from
a free-market small-government political position (well I was before I
changed my mind on climate change - now I just don't know). So I see
you being faced with the sort of forces that bought the British
Chancellor to his knees on Black Wednesday and forced to leave the
Exchange Rate Mechanism. Global Markets are more powerful than then,
and energy is the keystone of our entire civilisation.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
