 |
 |
Jo is right. We need a renewables revolution, but we need a cap too, and it must be on carbon emissions to the environment, not on the price of carbon. Peak Oil will not be enough on it's own because of carbon intensive alternatives to oil. The wherewithal to solve numerous environmental problems has been with us for decades, but the will is lacking because of short-term economic considerations. That is why C&C has not been adopted already. The banks are likely to jump at 'Kyoto2' because it will give them control whereby they will be able to do what banks do best i.e. ensure continued profits for the industrial elite at the expense of everyone else. Big industry and their government lackeys will always try to dupe the people. In the 1980s, Thatcher said something like, 'Science will have solved all global environmental problems within five years'. They must be rubbing their hands with glee that the environmental movement is now divided over the issue thanks to ill thought out reviews such as Monbiot's. Tom At 10:56 03/07/2008, jo abbess wrote: >Hi Crisis Forum, > >After some considerable thought regarding the range of >Cap-and-Something overarching policy proposals being put forward at >the current time (including Hansen's, Merkel's and Tickell's), my >conclusions are that a Carbon Cap is not enough, that money cannot >be used as a proxy for Carbon Control, that a de facto Carbon Cap is >already in the arena with Peak Oil, and that all Capping schemes >have the wrong focus. > >It is my assertion that any Carbon Control policy that does not >deliberately and explicitly de-Carbonise the Economies and the >Energy supply is bound to fail in its ultimate objectives, even if >it has a measure of success at the start. This is because Carbon is >so deeply embedded in all developed Economies, that it must be >pulled out by the roots or it will continue to bring both Ecology >and Economy to destruction by throttling. > >One of the problems with these Cap-and-Something schemes is that, >although they start out with the best intentions, the premise of >capping Carbon, at the point of designing an implementation plan, >they end up proposing using a mechanism to effect this based on money. > >It then becomes a finance-driven operation, instead of a >de-Carbonisation-driven operation. > >Non-Carbon sources of Energy are by their nature less Energy >intensive and therefore we will have to accept lower Energy flow >rates. This means that we must reduce our dependence on Energy, not >only reduce our dependency on Carbon. > >If we do not explicitly regulate to ramp up Renewable sources of >Energy, there will come a point where the Carbon Capping cannot be >enforced, because there is no non-Carbon Energy capacity to replace it. > >It is true, that if we can somehow enforce a price on Carbon, the >future projections are that the profit to be made from Carbon Energy >will be zero, so that investment in Renewable Energy will look like >a good wealth-creation option. However, it will be argued >internationally, that even though Carbon Energy no longer has any >profit-value, it is still necessary to support Economic function, >and so Carbon will continue to be used, perhaps managed by some quangos. > >We desperately need to take the Carbon out of every part of the >Economy, every part of manufacture, every part of agriculture, every >part of construction, transport, heating, lighting, power... > >I think that if we rely on voluntarism to de-Carbonise, or >trend-following after setting a Carbon Price by Cap or otherwise, we >will not achieve the de-Carbonisation we need. > >Also, since there is already a de facto Carbon Cap in operation due >to Peak Oil (in fact, Peak Energy), why should the suppliers of >Fossil Fuels into the Economy be compensated for capping output ? >Output is already being capped by Peak Energy... > >I know that the Energy Majors will be interested in Tickell's >scheme, as a way of having a licence to continue clinging to the >crag face kicking out dirt on the rest of us below. Tickell's >proposal is a licence to continue pumping Carbon into the Economy. > >Yes, everyone has something invested in the profit-making ability of >the Energy Majors, and so everyone has an interest in them >surviving. However, the Law of Increasing Profit Margins mean that >with such a licence to continue profiting from Carbon, while ramping >up non-Carbon Energy investment, the poor will still be paying for >the de-Carbonisation through their Energy bills. > >Why not just abandon such a complex scheme as Tickell's and go >straight for the jugular ? It costs hard cash to develop Renewable >Energy infrastructure and plant. The companies are unwilling to cut >their profits in order to do that (they are obliged to carry on >making as high a profit as they can to please their shareholders). >The Governments will have to manage the financing or incentivising >the development of Renewables. That means one of two options that >impact Citizen Consumers : Green Energy Tax or higher bills. Yer >pays yer money and yer takes yer choice. > >jo. >+44 77 17 22 13 96 >http://www.changecollege.org.uk > > >Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:21:10 +0100 >From: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: K2: Monbiot in today's Guardian >To: [log in to unmask] > >Aubrey, you seem to be making some assumptions here. Central Banks >are well qualified to run the auction as they have ample experience >of doing this kind of thing with the sale of Treasury Bonds, Bills, >etc. This does not mean that they will own or control the funds, any >more than if you sell an item on ebay, that ebay owns or controls >the funds you receive. The sovereign body would be the UNFCCC. Of >course it does not have to be central banks that run the auction. >Maybe ebay would do a better job? If that's what is decided, no >problem as far as I am concerned. This is a suggestion only, and if >wiser heads than mine come up with a better idea, no problem. > >Oliver Tickell, K2. > >From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum >[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of AUBREY MEYER >Sent: 02 July 2008 12:05 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: K2: Monbiot in today's Guardian > >So K-2's answer on future 'agency' for fossil fuel production >permit-auction is . . . . . . . "a coalition of the world's central >banks" . . . . . buy that, and the UN has clearly had its day [which >may be the case]. > >No wonder K-2 were reluctant to answer this particular question. > >Where's the constituency of support? > >Are nations and their peoples just going to say that's OK [we're not >really the affected consituency and we weren't really interested in >all this climate stuff anyway]. > >Are Texan, Angolan, Indian, Chinese . . . . 'a few thousand >oil/coal/gas corporations' (~) . . . . going to accept regulation >in a Government/UN-free world by a coalition of the world's central >banks?/! [!!] > >Are Exxon BP etc http://www.oilmajors.com/ just going to decamp from >Iraq the Gulf the Arctic [plus all the equivalent in Coal from the >world's coalfields] because they've finally succeeded in >deconstructing the UNFCCC. > >Is there any evidence that the banks are willing to co-operate and >accept this role? > >Baron von Munchhausen fell off his horse, when the horse was left >hanging from the Kremlin Spires in spring. This argument for the >banks to officially run the global decarbonisation needed is like >falling off my-little-pony in the middle of charge of the light brigade. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >"Tickell proposes setting a global limit for carbon pollution then >selling permits to pollute to companies extracting or refining >fossil fuels. This has the advantage of regulating a few thousand >corporations - running oil refineries, coal washeries, gas pipelines >and cement and fertiliser works for example - rather than a few >billion citizens. These firms would buy their permits in a global >auction, run by a coalition of the world's central banks." > >etc >Oliver Tickell <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > See http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/01/green-lifeline/ > > George Monbiot previews Kyoto2 (the book) in The Guardian and > concludes that > the K2 proposals "could represent a classic Keynesian solution > to economic > crisis. The $1, $2 or even $5 trillion the system would cost is used to > kick-start a green industrial revolution, a new New Deal not > that different > from the original one (whose most successful component was Roosevelt's > Civilian Conservation Corps, which protected forests and farmland)." > > > > >Aubrey Meyer >GCI >37 Ravenswood Road >LONDON E17 9LY >Ph 0208 520 4742 > > >---------- >Play now! <http://www.fishticuffs.co.uk>Get fish-slapping on Messenger