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! Get fish-slapping on
Messenger
