Comments on: The EPA ‘whistleblower’ YouTube http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/11/11/the-epa-whistleblower-youtube/ global risks and how to respond to them, edited by Alex Evans and David Steven Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:25:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: C. Ellis http://www.globaldashboard.org/2009/11/11/the-epa-whistleblower-youtube/comment-page-1/#comment-17028 C. Ellis Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:23:52 +0000 http://www.globaldashboard.org/?p=12161#comment-17028 dont wish to sound like a know-it-all, because of course i dont, but as an 'outsider' i am aware that most money is procured on a capitalist basis. Because of the style of this worldwide competition for funds, organisations have mutated into efficient, Tyrannosaurus Rex-like machines, to ensure that their outfits get a good share of the 'meat'. Thus, they will use the cheapest form of energy. These companies employ accountants and lawyers in order to avoid any unnecessary expenditure. In other words, to identify loopholes. As long as we continue with our market economy, such groups will have no incentives for changing their behaviour in this respect. It appears that policymakers and commerce live somewhat hand in glove. One only has to mention the word Libya to illustrate this (and i'm not picking on any particular party here). That's to say that for most countries, governments represent their commercial interests. Business will not let government loosen the ties; it would simply throw its financial weight around. So perhaps we can't really rely on governments to follow through any treaties anyway ... You say that "you can’t solve a global problem with a less-than-global solution – so any “solution” to climate change that lacks targets for developing countries simply isn’t a solution, however compelling the equity arguments." Of course, on the face of it, this makes perfect sense. However, that's if we're dealing with robots rather than human beings. i suggest that what the cap and trade (not to mention offset) system does not take into account is competition. Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of abundance for all; any capital gained is hard won. Therefore, people are extremely anxious about any 'sharing' proposition. This concept just does not square with the capitalist model and people are wary. Also, isn't the US economy quite a big one? Wouldn't developing countries have to adapt what they sell to the US if it introduced a carbon tax? Also, the US may put a carbon tax on imports, so again, you are encouraging other countries to reduce their carbon output if the US introduces a carbon tax. The cap and trade system requires, it seems to me, an enormous amount of bureaucracy - so something is bound to go wrong. What i'm sort of saying, i think, is that it will be very hard to make it equitable (eg how do you verify it?). On top of this, it is quite complicated and bearing in mind that we really, really need to get on with things, perhaps a simpler solution would at least get things going in the right direction. But, we needn't necessarily chose one system for reducing global emissions, or the other. What is useful is that we now have two choices. Perhaps we can say to developing countries, look, we can either continue with cap and trade, whereby you will receive credits, or we can employ a carbon tax, which probably will not be so beneficial for you. This gives negotiators more bargaining power, doesn't it? dont wish to sound like a know-it-all, because of course i dont, but as an ‘outsider’ i am aware that most money is procured on a capitalist basis. Because of the style of this worldwide competition for funds, organisations have mutated into efficient, Tyrannosaurus Rex-like machines, to ensure that their outfits get a good share of the ‘meat’. Thus, they will use the cheapest form of energy. These companies employ accountants and lawyers in order to avoid any unnecessary expenditure. In other words, to identify loopholes. As long as we continue with our market economy, such groups will have no incentives for changing their behaviour in this respect.

It appears that policymakers and commerce live somewhat hand in glove. One only has to mention the word Libya to illustrate this (and i’m not picking on any particular party here). That’s to say that for most countries, governments represent their commercial interests. Business will not let government loosen the ties; it would simply throw its financial weight around. So perhaps we can’t really rely on governments to follow through any treaties anyway …

You say that “you can’t solve a global problem with a less-than-global solution – so any “solution” to climate change that lacks targets for developing countries simply isn’t a solution, however compelling the equity arguments.” Of course, on the face of it, this makes perfect sense. However, that’s if we’re dealing with robots rather than human beings. i suggest that what the cap and trade (not to mention offset) system does not take into account is competition. Unfortunately, we do not live in a world of abundance for all; any capital gained is hard won. Therefore, people are extremely anxious about any ‘sharing’ proposition. This concept just does not square with the capitalist model and people are wary.

Also, isn’t the US economy quite a big one? Wouldn’t developing countries have to adapt what they sell to the US if it introduced a carbon tax? Also, the US may put a carbon tax on imports, so again, you are encouraging other countries to reduce their carbon output if the US introduces a carbon tax.

The cap and trade system requires, it seems to me, an enormous amount of bureaucracy – so something is bound to go wrong. What i’m sort of saying, i think, is that it will be very hard to make it equitable (eg how do you verify it?). On top of this, it is quite complicated and bearing in mind that we really, really need to get on with things, perhaps a simpler solution would at least get things going in the right direction.

But, we needn’t necessarily chose one system for reducing global emissions, or the other. What is useful is that we now have two choices. Perhaps we can say to developing countries, look, we can either continue with cap and trade, whereby you will receive credits, or we can employ a carbon tax, which probably will not be so beneficial for you. This gives negotiators more bargaining power, doesn’t it?

]]>