Cap and Trade and Yes and No

[Big Guy]

Quote: "... develop and implement a North American-wide cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution, with implementation to occur between 2012 and 2015"

Part of the left wing NDP policy paper? No.

Part of the left centrist Liberal policy paper? No.

This is directly off the 2008 Harper Conservative promises before the elections.

What happened? What has changed that cap-and-trade now it is a left wing conspiracy to bankrupt Canada?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/case-of-the-conservatives-carbon-amnesia/article4557581/

[-1=e^ipi]

A Pigouvian Tax would make more sense since it could help offset other taxes.

Edited April 15, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[TimG]

What happened? What has changed that cap-and-trade now it is a left wing conspiracy to bankrupt Canada?

Cap and trade plans are useful for two types of politicians:

1) Those that are informed enough to know that CO2 mitigation is a waste of money but need a "policy" that is opaque enough to allow them to do nothing while claiming to do something.

2) Those who are deluded enough to believe that CO2 reduction is possible but need a policy that is opaque enough to hide how the policy screws the middle class.

The CPC is clearly in group 1). Wynne and other lefties are in group 2).

IOW - so yes - if a left wing party pushes cap™ it is a scheme to screw over the middle class.

[ToadBrother]

Cap and trade plans are useful for two types of politicians:

1) Those that are informed enough to know that CO2 mitigation is a waste of money but need a "policy" that is opaque enough to allow them to do nothing while claiming to do something.

2) Those who are deluded enough to believe that CO2 reduction is possible but need a policy that is opaque enough to hide how the policy screws the middle class.

The CPC is clearly in group 1). Wynne and other lefties are in group 2).

IOW - so yes - if a left wing party pushes cap™ it is a scheme to screw over the middle class.

Not doing anything to bring down CO2 emissions will ultimately screw the large majority of the population over.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not doing anything to bring down CO2 emissions will ultimately screw the large majority of the population over.

Keep in mind these ideas come from the same crew who reckons all we need do to fix melting glaciers is build a dam......somewhere or other.

[bush_cheney2004]

What happened ? Same thing that happened to Kyoto treaty promises from PM Chretien.

[TimG]

Not doing anything to bring down CO2 emissions will ultimately screw the large majority of the population over.

There is no scientific bias for such a claim. What the science says is humans are emitting CO2 and this is contributing to a gradual warming of the planet. The net effects of this warming are largely unknown despite what various astrologers with computer models may claim. Logically, the net effects are likely to be a mixture of good and bad.

That said, even if one accepted the premise that CO2 should be reduced the problem is there is currently no viable way to reduce emissions enough to make any difference. No government program is going to change that fundamental reality whether it is cap and trade or a carbon tax.

This means the only rational approach to the stated problem is to build the economy and build infrastructure that allows us to adapt to any changes that may come. Pissing money away on ineffective CO2 reduction schemes simply take resources away from investments in adaptation which are what will ultimately protect people from whatever harms come from climate change.

Edited April 15, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

There is no scientific bias for such a claim. What the science says is humans are emitting CO2 and this is contributing to a gradual warming of the planet. The net effects of this warming are largely unknown despite what various astrologers with computer models may claim. Logically, the net effects are likely to be a mixture of good and bad.

That said, even if one accepted the premise that CO2 should be reduced the problem is there is currently no viable way to reduce emissions enough to make any difference. No government program is going to change that fundamental reality whether it is cap and trade or a carbon tax.

This means the only rational approach to the stated problem is to build the economy and build infrastructure that allows us to adapt to any changes that may come. Pissing money away on ineffective CO2 reduction schemes simply take resources away from investments in adaptation which are what will ultimately protect people from whatever harms come from climate change.

The are lots of unknowns in climatology, but there is little debate that CO2 emissions are going to have substantial effects on the global climate.

And what you're basically saying is "Well, we know we're poisoning the river, but rather that trying to reduce the poison, we should just learn how to live with it."

Burning fossil fuels is bad. It's bad for the environment, it's bad for long term climate, not to mention its a non-renewable resource whose importance in other areas (industrial processes, lubricants, material technologies) makes using it as a source of energy profoundly short sighted. Reducing CO2 is absolutely critical in the medium and long term, which means short term pain will have to be accepted.

[TimG]

And what you're basically saying is "Well, we know we're poisoning the river, but rather that trying to reduce the poison, we should just learn how to live with it."

Bad analogy. The "poison in the river" in unequivocally bad. When it comes to CO2 there will be good effects as well as bad. For example, the amount of vegetation has increased globally because CO2 is plant food. The IPCC says warming will increase water availability in many regions and therefore reduce stress created by water shortages. For many people CO2 induced warming will be a net benefit. For others, not so much. It really depends.

Burning fossil fuels is bad.

Burning fossil fuels is also necessary to 7 billion people fed and housed. There are simply no viable alternatives that can be deployed at the scale required. That means that no matter how much we might wish to reduce CO2 our primary efforts need to be directed to adapting to whatever changes may come. Edited April 15, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Bad analogy. The "poison in the river" in unequivocally bad. When it comes to CO2 there will be good effects as well as bad. For example, the amount of vegetation has increased globally because CO2 is plant food. The IPCC says warming will increase water availability in many regions and therefore reduce stress created by water shortages. For many people CO2 induced warming will be a net benefit. For others, not so much. It really depends.

Burning fossil fuels is also necessary to 7 billion people fed and housed. There are simply no viable alternatives that can be deployed at the scale required. That means that no matter how much we might wish to reduce CO2 our primary efforts need to be directed to adapting to whatever changes may come.

I'd say the North American rainbelt shifting several degrees northward will have pretty major geopolitical effects for the Continent, making the US far more reliant on Canadian food. As you note, the downside of some regions getting more rain is other regions getting less precipitation. If history is any guide, even changes in rain patterns of a few decades can have significant effects on migration patterns.

If we keep giving fossil fuels preferential status and don't start moving to alternatives, then we will be forced to refine alternative technologies under far less preferential economic conditions. Simply saying "we should adapt" is little more than an excuse for apathy and laziness. The costs of adapting in a century will dwarf the costs of at least attempting mitigation now.

Every other civilization that has undermined itself through environmental damage has hit a brick wall. Unlike our ancestors, we actually know what the problems are, actually do have at least the rudiments of alternative sources of energy, and have the economic means to transition. The only thing preventing this at the moment is shortsightedness and greed. What you're basically arguing is we should behave as foolishly as previous civilizations did, and simply hope for the best.

[TimG]

If we keep giving fossil fuels preferential status and don't start moving to alternatives, then we will be forced to refine alternative technologies under far less preferential economic conditions.

A more likely scenario: alternatives will be more affordable because of advancements in technology and increases in wealth made possible by a fossil fuel driven economy. The more we wait, the cheaper it will be.

Simply saying "we should adapt" is little more than an excuse for apathy and laziness. The costs of adapting in a century will dwarf the costs of at least attempting mitigation now.

Not according to any study that I have seen. The "costs" of climate change in most middle of the road scenarios add up to a bad recession a century from now. These "costs" imply adaptation. The only way mitigation can be made to look like a economically sensible action is if one assumes a zero discount rate and assume that society does nothing to deal with the changes. IOW, you have no rational basis to claim that adaptation is more expensive the mitigation. The reverse is actually true.

The only thing preventing this at the moment is shortsightedness and greed.

What is limiting us is physics. No matter how much you wish to believe that "alternatives" exist they simply cannot replace fossil fuels in their current form. The people who point this out are not motivated by greed but by an understanding of reality.

If you want evidence look to Germany: the land which has invested heavily in alternatives like wind and solar but is now building many new coal fired power plants to replace the nuclear base load because good intentions don't keep the lights on. Same in Japan.

Edited April 15, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

This means the only rational approach to the stated problem is to build the economy and build infrastructure that allows us to adapt to any changes that may come. Pissing money away on ineffective CO2 reduction schemes simply take resources away from investments in adaptation which are what will ultimately protect people from whatever harms come from climate change.

I think this claim is too strong. Some mitigation might be optimal but I don't think anyone in this thread has sufficient evidence to know if that is true or not given our current information. Anyway, hopefully this decade reasonable individuals such as Juddith Curry will help us figure out what the best policy is.

"Well, we know we're poisoning the river, but rather that trying to reduce the poison, we should just learn how to live with it."

Except CO2 isn't poison.

Burning fossil fuels is bad.

The binary perception of the world that many climate change alarmists have never ceases to amuse me. Is burning fossil fuels to heat a hospital that is treating sick children a bad thing? Whether burning fossil fuels is 'good' or 'bad' depends what the fossil fuels are being used for.

It's bad for the environment, it's bad for long term climate

These are very strong claims. Could you please back these claims up with empirical evidence and reasoning?

Reducing CO2 is absolutely critical in the medium and long term

Again, a very strong claim. Please back it up.

Edited April 16, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

Luckily governments, who have access to actual science, are not playing silly little games with this and that formula, and actually making attempts to rein in the problem. I still have yet to hear where this dam is going to be built to try and replace the loss of a glacier.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'd say the North American rainbelt shifting several degrees northward will have pretty major geopolitical effects for the Continent

A google search of North American Rainbelt did not yield any useful definition of this term. Are you referring to the mean annual latitude of the Northern Polar Jetstream along the North American West Coast? Could you please elaborate on what you mean?

making the US far more reliant on Canadian food.

I do not see how this necessarily follows from your earlier claim. The CO2 fertilization effect will be positive everywhere. The South West continental US may get drier, but most of the rest of the US should get wetter on average. On average, the rate of moisture transfer between oceans and continents should increase from global warming due to the Clausius Clapeyron relation, thus the continents will get overall wetter even after taking evaporation into account.

I get the impression that your perception on the expected impacts of climate change is very skewed, but I can't really blame you given the large amounts of misinformation that is propagated by the media.

Simply saying "we should adapt" is little more than an excuse for apathy and laziness.

Or perhaps someone has a different conclusion as to what the optimal policy response to global warming is based on their reasoning and understanding of the evidence.

The costs of adapting in a century will dwarf the costs of at least attempting mitigation now.

This is a very strong claim. If you can demonstrate this claim to be true then I suggest that you provide your justification to the IPCC and other organizations because I am sure they would greatly appreciate the fact that you have conclusively figured out the answer to this for them.

The only thing preventing this at the moment is shortsightedness and greed.

This is like the claim some theists make that the only reason people are atheists is because they want to sin.

Why is the possibility that someone has a different conclusion based on the evidence & methodology available to them outside of the realm of possibility?

[On Guard for Thee]

We will do well here in Canada... for a while. Moving the growing season just a small way north with waring temps. and all that productive type soil we have up north will provide us with some seriously expanded food growing opportunities. To hell with the buggers down south I say.

[Keepitsimple]

We will do well here in Canada... for a while. Moving the growing season just a small way north with waring temps. and all that productive type soil we have up north will provide us with some seriously expanded food growing opportunities. To hell with the buggers down south I say.

As much as it might have been tongue-in-cheek, it's a very accurate statement - same thing goes for vast portions of Russia and China - huge amounts of fertile cropland. This planet has nowhere near reached its potential for habitation. Peace, water, energy and food. Increased cropland handles the food. Water from the ocean through de-salination takes care of that (we've got 100 years to figure that one out). Energy? Plenty of clean solutions already in development. Peace? Now there's the wild-card. While the tiny minds leap on "causes" for short-term political gain, the vision is right in front of us - look at what we've accomplished in the last century and think about the potential of this next one. And no, Global Warming will not destroy the planet before then.

[nerve]

Quote: "... develop and implement a North American-wide cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases and air pollution, with implementation to occur between 2012 and 2015"

Part of the left wing NDP policy paper? No.

Part of the left centrist Liberal policy paper? No.

This is directly off the 2008 Harper Conservative promises before the elections.

What happened? What has changed that cap-and-trade now it is a left wing conspiracy to bankrupt Canada?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/case-of-the-conservatives-carbon-amnesia/article4557581/

The real issue is subnational territorial division s such as states and provinces implementing this themselves eg Ontario, Quebec and B.C.. This creates layers or potential duplication. The constitutionality needs to be looked into based upon division of powers. Is this a resource issue an environmental issue or a business issue.

No tax is good tax.

It should be a fine under environmental protection. Screw all these funny winner looser games. Either you break environmental protection laws or you don't.

It should be based on maximum safe emissions. The trade aspect is bollocks it should be based upon safe release limits.

The gov should implement a tax deduction program for carbon sink tech and carbon sequestration activities.

This is a bigger issue for non boomers who will maybe be alive in 2050 or perhaps even 2100. The die off boomers not an issue, young people issue. It is a matter of ethics.

Its not just the environmental effect but the geopolitical inputs at that point and the world the non boomers will be living in.

We need to look into future costs not only to ourselves but also to our neighbours to the south and around the world, what is it doing to them?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/health.html

If we can't pay for it now we cant pay for it then with more debt interest and a collapsing global environment, increase natural disasters such as forest fires. Costs are going to go up and without any investment to pay for those things it means total socialism in failing to implement your so-called left wing policies.

Nothing will be done federally on then file to tighten industrial controls while the conservatives are in government.

We have seen the opposite.

There are other considerations though such as increasing US immigration.

Also other migrants

http://desmog.ca/2014/11/10/new-report-urges-canada-prepare-climate-migrants-warming-world-ccpa

Edited April 16, 2015 by nerve

[TimG]

I think this claim is too strong. Some mitigation might be optimal but I don't think anyone in this thread has sufficient evidence to know if that is true or not given our current information.

Perhaps, however, I am assuming that the economies natural rated of decarbonization will continue (i.e. even if governments ignore the CO2 issue people will invest in technologies that reduce energy consumption because it saves them money). Governments can help this process by gradually raising the bar on energy efficiency standards as technology becomes available. What is pretty clear are policies that have no benefits other than alleged CO2 emission reductions (e.g. carbon offset trading) are wrong headed. Edited April 16, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

As much as it might have been tongue-in-cheek, it's a very accurate statement - same thing goes for vast portions of Russia and China - huge amounts of fertile cropland. This planet has nowhere near reached its potential for habitation. Peace, water, energy and food. Increased cropland handles the food. Water from the ocean through de-salination takes care of that (we've got 100 years to figure that one out). Energy? Plenty of clean solutions already in development. Peace? Now there's the wild-card. While the tiny minds leap on "causes" for short-term political gain, the vision is right in front of us - look at what we've accomplished in the last century and think about the potential of this next one. And no, Global Warming will not destroy the planet before then.

As much as it might have been tongue-in-cheek, it's a very accurate statement - same thing goes for vast portions of Russia and China - huge amounts of fertile cropland. This planet has nowhere near reached its potential for habitation. Peace, water, energy and food. Increased cropland handles the food. Water from the ocean through de-salination takes care of that (we've got 100 years to figure that one out). Energy? Plenty of clean solutions already in development. Peace? Now there's the wild-card. While the tiny minds leap on "causes" for short-term political gain, the vision is right in front of us - look at what we've accomplished in the last century and think about the potential of this next one. And no, Global Warming will not destroy the planet before then.

Lets just make sure we keep those clean energy solutions moving apace so GW doesnt destroy the planet before then.

[-1=e^ipi]

It should be based on maximum safe emissions.

But no such thing exists. There is no sudden tipping point or point where damages go from 0 to very large. Net cost is a continuous function of emissions.

[-1=e^ipi]

Lets just make sure we keep those clean energy solutions moving apace so GW doesnt destroy the planet before then.

How do you define 'destroying the planet'?

[On Guard for Thee]

How do you define 'destroying the planet'?

You will have to take that up with KIS, I was simply responding to his post where he uses the phrase. According to what a lot of actual scientists have said, I dont think we will actually destroy it, like say a huge meteorite striking it or so, we could just make it uninhabitable for mere mortals like us.

[TimG]

According to what a lot of actual scientists have said, I dont think we will actually destroy it

Actually, very few scientists have made such a claim and those that have are not acting as scientists. No one who understands the science seriously believes that a small amount of warming will make the planet uninhabitable. They might believe that it will make life very difficult for the 7 billion or so humans but that is a different problem. Edited April 16, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

You will have to take that up with KIS, I was simply responding to his post where he uses the phrase. According to what a lot of actual scientists have said, I dont think we will actually destroy it, like say a huge meteorite striking it or so, we could just make it uninhabitable for mere mortals like us.

So your definition of destroying the planet is making it uninhabitable for humans? What is your perception of the global planetary conditions necessary to achieve this?

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually, very few scientists have made such a claim and those that have are not acting as scientists. No one who understands the science seriously believes that a small amount of warming will make the planet uninhabitable. They might believe that it will make life very difficult for the 7 billion or so humans but that is a different problem.

We are already enjoying a small amount of warming. Its how much more and how rapidly is the concern.