Despair, Courage, & Hope in an Age of Environmental Turmoil

[Murky]

Check for yourself: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sit...pting to climate change in remote Roviana.pdf

Summary: National emissions have dropped from their 2008-9 peak, but the carbon tax period saw no change from pre-tax to now. So the carbon tax has done nothing to reduce national emissions.

That's interesting. It looks like there was significant lowering of emissions from electricity but that was offset by fugitive emissions and deforestation (bushfires?). I would bet that repealing the carbon tax isn't going to help lower or prevent emissions from increasing.

 

[Dale]

That's interesting. It looks like there was significant lowering of emissions from electricity but that was offset by fugitive emissions and deforestation (bushfires?). I would bet that repealing the carbon tax isn't going to help lower or prevent emissions from increasing.

The answer is on page 9.

As for reducing our emissions, removing the entirety of Australia's emissions will reduce global temps by 0.008C. Go hassle China and the US.

Bushfires? Over-reaching there quite a bit Murky.

 

[Murky]

The answer is on page 9.

As for reducing our emissions, removing the entirety of Australia's emissions will reduce global temps by 0.008C. Go hassle China and the US.

Bushfires? Over-reaching there quite a bit Murky.

It was a question. I don't know much forest was lost to Bushfires in Australia and how much was lost to regular use for lumber or clearing land for development.

Overall, compared to other countries, the report wasn't that bad. It might have been much worse if no action to confront climate change been taken.

 

[Dale]

It was a question. I don't know much forest was lost to Bushfires in Australia and how much was lost to regular use for lumber or clearing land for development.

Overall, compared to other countries, the report wasn't that bad. It might have been much worse if no action to confront climate change been taken.

The irony with your statement is very little has been done to "battle climate change". Page 3 of that document shows just how incorrect your statement is. On page 4 only three sectors show decreases in emissions 12 months to March 2013:

1. Electricity - as household solar and gas conversions increase;
2. Industrial - a sector which has been facing a long slow death over many years; and
3. Waste - methane capture is being implemented in landfills (there was a huge case of out-rage over a methane leak in a suburban estate build on an old landfill resulting in methane capture being implemented).

 

[Murky]

What would the report look like if nobody cared in the least about carbon emissions and everyone was just like, "Burn as much coal, oil and gas as you want. There's a lot more where that came from. Climate science is just crap anyway." It's just a simple what if question.

What if nobody cared?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, to swing back on track. The whole 'carbon tax' will need to be regressive, due to the fact that it's a consumption tax.

My faith in the ability of this to be anything other than asinine as implemented in the real world and in this country is somewhat limited.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, honestly, the only two options we have available are cap&trade and a carbon tax. On paper, I like C&P better, it's got better economic theory. In practice, I think a carbon tax is much more possible.

 

[peter grimes]

Why are those the only two options? Why not tax the "resource" at its source, rather than at its sink?

I once read a blog entry that detailed a new tax scheme that put the costs directly onto resource extraction from the get-go. There were other aspects to it that dovetailed with this fundamental shift in the way we incentivize behavior.

I just found the post after searching for a bit, so please give it a read - I may have gotten it wrong seeing as I read it nearly 4 years ago!

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/12/immodest-proposals.html

 

[Dale]

Well, honestly, the only two options we have available are cap&trade and a carbon tax. On paper, I like C&P better, it's got better economic theory. In practice, I think a carbon tax is much more possible.

There's plenty of options ranging from a soft "warning on the packaging" type option to a hard criminalisation of carbon. If it's so bad for us, then just simply make the substance illegal.

What if nobody cared?

Wouldn't happen. There's a sucker born every day.

 

[El_Machinae]

If it's so bad for us, then just simply make the substance illegal.

That's essentially what cap & trade is.

 

[Dale]

That's essentially what cap & trade is.

No it's not, it's nothing like it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes it is. It's commonly believed that there's no need for straight cessation of emissions. We're going to be 'drawing down' emissions over time; that requires a gradual reduction in the amount of permitted emissions.

That's what cap & trade is. Not throwing in the 'trade' into the 'cap' is asinine.

 

[Dale]

Yes it is. It's commonly believed that there's no need for straight cessation of emissions. We're going to be 'drawing down' emissions over time; that requires a gradual reduction in the amount of permitted emissions.

That's what cap & trade is. Not throwing in the 'trade' into the 'cap' is asinine.

I'm sorry, I'm still laughing.

How you could consider "illegal" to be the same thing as "legal" is quite funny.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, laughing is inappropriate. A cap&trade system is a drawdown on the legal limits of emission. It does, in effect, 'make the damned stuff illegal'.

 

[Dale]

Well, laughing is inappropriate. A cap&trade system is a drawdown on the legal limits of emission. It does, in effect, 'make the damned stuff illegal' in El Machinae fantasy land.

Fixed.

 

[Gucumatz]

So what are your opinions on theoretical feed in tariffs? -> Incentivizing the general population to make money off of returning energy to the grid can be significantly more efficient on a micro level than a macro level

Several consulting firms [ie McKinsey] have also run several analysis that we can cut more than 40% of emissions here in the US for actually no net cost simply due to leveraging efficiency. Overall there are plenty of small regulations that would be net benefits to certain industry that are ignored on a much more micro level than Cap and trade. The Micro MPC of consumers regarding energy is a much more powerful force if well utilized.

Anyhow, I think in maybe 50 years someone will discover a use for a currently neglected substance in the earth (similar to how natural gas and petrol were thought of at one point as worthless) and turn it in the ultimate solution. My money is on Silanes that have the potential to revolutionize energy [in fact potentially its emissions could counter the effects of global warming] or some current fringe energy idea taking center stage one day.

 

[peter grimes]

I hadn't heard of silanes before, so I looked it up:
" Silane is also used in supersonic combustion ramjets to initiate combustion in the compressed air stream. As it can burn using carbon dioxide as an oxidizer it is a candidate fuel for engines operating on Mars.[15] Since this reaction has some byproducts which are solid (silicon dioxide and carbon) it is applicable only to liquid-fuel rockets (with liquid carbon dioxide), ramjets, or other reaction engines.

Silane and similar compounds containing Si—H bonds are used as reducing agents in organic and organometallic chemistry.[16]"
From the wiki.

I didn't know that anything could use CO2 as an oxidizer. Silanes must be pretty hungry!

 

[El_Machinae]

Fixed.

Wow, you sure bring nuance to a debate. I'm sooooo glad you're able to cogently express your bitterness.

 

[Phrossack]

You can't disagree with Dale without getting insulted. He thinks it'll help persuade people for some reason. Really, any reasonable discussion in this thread ended long ago and it's time to put the poor thing down.

 

[peter grimes]

In all fairness, it's not as if Dale hasn't ignored a fair amount of vitriol aimed at him.

And just because an emission is above the cap doesn't necessarily make it illegal, right? It just means that the government can tax it at a different rate. More like a civil penalty than a criminal one.