Hello Everybody,
I agree with Brian on this.
The aim of geo engineering must not be to preserve living standards.
A high carbon tax is an essential to force down greenhouse gas emissions
very substantially. In addition geo engineering should be developed to
protect what cannot be protected by reducing emissions. However as there
must be some negatives from geo engineering it should only be used to
the minimum necessary to preserve the climate after we have cut
greenhouse gas emissions very substantially and this will mean a reduced
standard of living made more acceptable if there is greater equality.
All the Best,
John B Davies personal
-----Original Message-----
From: John Nissen [
mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 July 2010 16:07
To: Brian Orr
Cc:
[log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask];
Oliver Tickell; John Gorman; John Davies; Ron Larson; Julie Major; Mark
Lynas
Subject: Climate change, carbon tax and standard of living
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]
--
Support Friends of the Earth
https://www.foe.co.uk/?email_staff
Friends of the Earth Limited - Company No 1012357
Friends of the Earth Trust - Company No 1533942
Registered Charity No 281681
Registered Office - 26 - 28 Underwood Street, London. N1 7JQ
