Hi all,

Brian has suggested a lifestyle reduction of 60% (see posting appended 
below), but consider the following points.

It is now a generally accepted premise that, if CO2 emissions can be 
drastically reduced, the planet can be saved. 

Following from this premise, there is a common assumption that we have 
to change our lifestyle to reduce carbon emissions - and  I think that 
is probably why there are so many climate change sceptics - they simply 
want to believe that they can carry on as they have been doing without 
guilt.  Hence we have a fight between climate change believers and 
climate change sceptics - and this underlied the impasse at Copenhagen 
last December.

But is the premise true?  Even if CO2 emissions could be reduced to zero 
overnight, the existing CO2 level would remain well above pre-industrial 
level for centuries if not millenia.  Therefore global warming would 
continue this century and long after.  This would cause emissions of CO2 
from soils and ocean as they warm, thus the CO2 level would continue to 
rise after emissions were cut to zero.

One of the most significant effects of global warming is the dramatic 
retreat of Arctic sea ice, whose complete loss would almost inevitably 
be followed by discharge of massive quantities of methane for 
permafrost, and we are then liable for thermal runaway.  But continued 
global warming is liable to lose us the Amazon rainforest, with equally 
catastrophic consequences.

Thus emissions reductions cannot save the planet, from the physics of 
the situation.  The premise is false.

By accepting the false premise, all our efforts are focussed, at 
Copenhagen and in NGOs, on emissions reduction.  But because the premise 
is false, we are on a hiding to nothing.  Forget your hair-shirts and 
other lifestyle changes!

Stop and think.  The global warming is due to the existing CO2 in the 
atmosphere - so one of our challenges has to be to reduce that level 
towards 300 ppm and the preindustrial level.  How do we do that?  Use 
biology and chemistry - a two prong approach.  Use plants to absorb CO2, 
and bury the carbon.  It's called biochar.  Use chemicals to scrub CO2 
from the atmosphere, and bury the CO2.

How do you pay for this?  The obvious way is using a carbon tax on 
fossil fuels, raised like VAT at the point of extraction, as the fossil 
fuels are sold on.   This tax would be gradually ramped up over the 
years.  At some point, the tax would be sufficient to pay for as much 
carbon put in the ground as taken out.  CO2 removal from the atmosphere 
would exactly balance CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.  The world 
economy would be carbon neutral automatically.  Beyond this point the 
world economy would become carbon negative, and CO2 levels would fall - 
eventually approaching pre-industrial levels.

How much would it cost?  I reckon the tax would need to reach about $1 
trillion per year - equivalent to 1.5% global GDP -  hardly enough to 
effect most people's lifestyle - even gas-guzzlers!  Certainly not 60% 
for you, Brian.

So off with that hair shirt.  Let's stop fighting one another, and 
campaign for a carbon tax directly on fossil fuel out of the ground to 
pay for the geoengineering to get the CO2 down to near pre-industrial level.

And, while we're about it, some of the tax should for the geoengineering 
to save the Arctic sea ice - a mere $1 billion per annum.  A snitch.

Cheers,

John

---

Brian Orr wrote:
> Tom,
>
> You've certainly moved the debate a lot closer to where it should be 
> at but I suspect you've pulled back from the brink a little - the 
> abyss would frighten all but the totally fearless or the totally 
> unfeeling.
>
> How far would you agree with my 'guess' that the West will need to 
> drop its material standard of living by 60% over the next 20 - 30 
> years? 30% to achieve zero carbon emissions, 20% to achieve 
> ecological/environmental sustainability and 10% to allow the 
> developing world a measure of expansion - which we owe them many times 
> over.
>
> Running on a material economy 40% of what we have now - we will have 
> gone back to pre-war conditions. Sure! But with greater equality we 
> can insist on and the huge progress we have made in the 'knowledge 
> sphere' as it applies to industry, learning, medicine and 
> entertainment should mean we will have much more enjoyable lives.
>
> We won't be able to take our i-pods to 2030 but if technology can't 
> give us an 'alternative technology' for 2030 then I suggest its 
> climbing into a death spiral.
>
> Brian Orr
>
> [snip]