Hi CRISIS FORUM,
Oliver Tickell says : "The Kyoto2 approach also wants to invest a large part of
the approx $1 trillion proceeds of the Permit Auction explicitly into
decarbonising the global economy, with a huge programme of investment into
energy research, renewables, etc, including expanding access to energy in poor
countries but entirely based on low-C technologies."
One of the main dangers with the scheme he proposes, in my view, is that the ownership of the Carbon Permits, the ownership of the funds for de-Carbonisation, and the ownership of the final non-Carbon Energy systems could all be out of the hands of governments, and in the hands of corporates who may corrupt the process.
ExxonMobil may be advertising everywhere about how cool they are about Carbon, but they are still abusing us, our funds and our atmosphere with their main business products. They are the absolute pinnacle of the example of corruption, as they have been funding Global Warming skeptic front groups for years.
jo.
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.changecollege.org.uk
________________________________
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:12:12 +0100
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A Carbon Cap is not Enough
To: [log in to unmask]
I agree that a lot of what Jo says is right. A carbon cap
is not enough, in that although it can in principle meet the core objective of
cutting emissions it will do so (if not backed up by complementary measures) in
a painful and economically inefficient way. There are many low and negative cost
ways of cutting emissions which are not happening as a result of market
failures. Regulation is the best way of addressing this problem, as with energy
standards on goods from cars and computers to houses and power stations.
Because the result is often emission reductions at negative cost, this is
actually anti-inflationary and people are better off as a result, giving scope
to take other measures which actually do cost us, at least in the short term.
We also need to recall the success of the Montreal Protocol
which has done more to cut GHG emissions than the Kyoto Protocol, by accident.
Again, this underscores the need for regulation at a global level, but backed up
(as in the MP) by a Multilateral Fund to finance compliance in poor countries.
This is a very efficient way of achieving our objective, viz the F-gas fiasco
which achieved cuts of CHF3 production at a cost of $4.7 billion under the KP,
when an MP approach would have done the same for $100m. Under Kyoto2 an MF for
this purpose would be financed out of auction proceeds.
The Kyoto2 approach also wants to invest a large part of
the approx $1 trillion proceeds of the Permit Auction explicitly into
decarbonising the global economy, with a huge programme of investment into
energy research, renewables, etc, including expanding access to energy in poor
countries but entirely based on low-C technologies. Also energy conservation so
as to reduce (in some countries) and limit (in others) energy
demand.
I hope this helps to dispel and misconceptions about
Kyoto2, Oliver.
________________________________
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom
Barker
Sent: 03 July 2008 12:26
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A Carbon Cap is not
Enough
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
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
_________________________________________________________________
Live Search Charades - guess correctly and find hidden videos
http://www.searchcharades.com/
