|
Post by captainconfident on Apr 25, 2019 11:05:06 GMT
There seems to be a general understanding that the key pollutant which is going to fry us in short order is Co2. However, it is completely free to dump as much as you like into the atmosphere. It is a ludicrous situation. 80% of this comes from industry - metal smelting, cement works etc. Source? (not sure if you're referring to the UK or worldwide)
Source is The Economist but I remembered 80% rather than looking it up - Nov Dec last year. But how about addressing the point I am making?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Apr 25, 2019 11:31:20 GMT
Nope - we can more easily invest in green technology (and provide aid overseas for the same) with a functioning economy. Problem is that a growing amount of UK CO2 'production' is embedded within imported goods, i.e. the country of origin (e.g. China) produces the CO2 rather than the consumer country (the UK). See
'Figure 2 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with UK consumption 1997, 2007, 2015 and 2016' shows
"In 2016 total greenhouse gas emissions associated with UK consumption were 3 per cent lower than in 1997 when this series begins." split:
"Road transport emissions generated directly by households: increased 6%" "UK production emissions attributable to UK final consumption: decreased 35%" "Households heating emissions arising from use of fossil fuels:decreased 12%"
"Imports used by UK businesses and directly by UK consumers increased 43%"
The imports figure is now the largest component, no doubt due to "Since 1997, the UK economy has continued to move from a manufacturing base towards the services sector."
It's a good point. But I still think you can address it without destroying the economy. Economic growth doesn't have to mean more consumerism & imported Chinese junk.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 25, 2019 11:46:56 GMT
'Figure 2 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with UK consumption 1997, 2007, 2015 and 2016' shows
"In 2016 total greenhouse gas emissions associated with UK consumption were 3 per cent lower than in 1997 when this series begins." split:
"Road transport emissions generated directly by households: increased 6%" "UK production emissions attributable to UK final consumption: decreased 35%" "Households heating emissions arising from use of fossil fuels:decreased 12%"
"Imports used by UK businesses and directly by UK consumers increased 43%"
The imports figure is now the largest component, no doubt due to "Since 1997, the UK economy has continued to move from a manufacturing base towards the services sector."
It's a good point. But I still think you can address it without destroying the economy. Clearly didn't come across that way, but my point was meant tongue-in-cheek.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 25, 2019 11:49:45 GMT
Source? (not sure if you're referring to the UK or worldwide)
Source is The Economist but I remembered 80% rather than looking it up - Nov Dec last year. But how about addressing the point I am making? Which point?
If it's "However, it is completely free to dump as much as you like into the atmosphere". True, countries will need to reduce it. I don't see a reason for a carbon tax, which countries/companies will no doubt 'game' in order to make money (and doubt all countries will sign up).
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Apr 25, 2019 12:15:38 GMT
There seems to be a general understanding that the key pollutant which is going to fry us in short order is Co2. However, it is completely free to dump as much as you like into the atmosphere. It is a ludicrous situation. 80% of this comes from industry - metal smelting, cement works etc. and Co2 emissions need to be priced in in order for the market to give correcting signals to shape human activity. It requires a worldwide tax on carbon dioxide, with tariffs for non-compliant countries. As the clock has ticked on, it has become necessary in all climate correcting models to include Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to rebalance. The obvious place for the storage is in natural reservoirs such as oil wells which are pumped dry using gas pressure. At the moment that gas is air, because there is no incentive to use Co2 because it has no price. The market needs intervention where capitalism is producing no price signal for this most damaging product. A carbon tax fairly reprices all goods and services in proportion to their consumption. It spreads the burden more fairly than any other piecemeal subsidies and encouragements. With tariffs for non compliant countries. Without a concerted action such as this, nothing like enough will ever be done to stave of catastrophe, simple as that.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,948
Likes: 4,787
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 25, 2019 13:21:38 GMT
A carbon tax fairly reprices all goods and services in proportion to their consumption. It spreads the burden more fairly than any other piecemeal subsidies and encouragements. With tariffs for non compliant countries. Without a concerted action such as this, nothing like enough will ever be done to stave of catastrophe, simple as that. I'm not convinced it is that simple, not in a global context where you're dealing with wide disparities of affordability. How do you price the tax? Consistently? If so, then a punitive cost for the developing world is a mere pocket change inconvenience for the wealthy nations. If not, then you simply have yet more offshoring and movement of pollution to the cheaper locations.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Apr 25, 2019 13:25:47 GMT
A carbon tax fairly reprices all goods and services in proportion to their consumption. It spreads the burden more fairly than any other piecemeal subsidies and encouragements. With tariffs for non compliant countries. Without a concerted action such as this, nothing like enough will ever be done to stave of catastrophe, simple as that. I'm not convinced it is that simple, not in a global context where you're dealing with wide disparities of affordability. How do you price the tax? Consistently? If so, then a punitive cost for the developing world is a mere pocket change inconvenience for the wealthy nations. If not, then you simply have yet more offshoring and movement of pollution to the cheaper locations. Price the tax by international treaty as was done in Paris etc. It is the only thing that will shift patterns of production and consumption enough to make the change that is not just necessary but essential. The notion of the Developing World becomes irrelevant as those countries become progressively more devastated by climate change. And by and large such countries will be the most immediately effected. The other alternative, 'we'll muddle through somehow' is very similar to that argued by Brexiteers. It is sensible to face the facts square on and propose solutions.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 25, 2019 13:27:36 GMT
A carbon tax fairly reprices all goods and services in proportion to their consumption. It spreads the burden more fairly than any other piecemeal subsidies and encouragements. With tariffs for non compliant countries. Without a concerted action such as this, nothing like enough will ever be done to stave of catastrophe, simple as that. I'm not convinced it is that simple, not in a global context where you're dealing with wide disparities of affordability. How do you price the tax? Consistently? If so, then a punitive cost for the developing world is a mere pocket change inconvenience for the wealthy nations. If not, then you simply have yet more offshoring and movement of pollution to the cheaper locations. Has the US ever supported a carbon tax? I'm 100% sure that Trump won't.
China would most likely see it as the West, having polluted the world for decades, calling on China to halt development.
Without those two countries, the idea is dead in the water imo.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,948
Likes: 4,787
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 25, 2019 13:29:14 GMT
I'm not convinced it is that simple, not in a global context where you're dealing with wide disparities of affordability. How do you price the tax? Consistently? If so, then a punitive cost for the developing world is a mere pocket change inconvenience for the wealthy nations. If not, then you simply have yet more offshoring and movement of pollution to the cheaper locations. Has the US ever supported a carbon tax? I'm 100% sure that Trump won't.
China would most likely see it as the West, having polluted the world for decades, calling on China to halt development.
Without those two countries, the idea is dead in the water imo.
Well, absolutely. Before you even get to how it's priced, you've got to get political agreement to the concept...
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Apr 25, 2019 14:31:23 GMT
It's a good point. But I still think you can address it without destroying the economy. Clearly didn't come across that way, but my point was meant tongue-in-cheek. I almost wrote: "although I know you are being tongue-in-cheek" but then didn't, just in case...
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 8, 2019 21:22:57 GMT
Only one person admitting to being a climate change denier...? Makes one wonder how the "much ado" thread's got to four pages... Its just risen again.
|
|