Here are links to a couple of reviews of Greg's book. As I've been plugging it so much, I'm glad to see that independent reviewers share my (biased - I lent a hand with it - damnit!) view that there is something very special about this book. The New Scientist one speaks for itself but the Climate Sight blog is from a well respected and followed "starting out" climatologist.New Scientist review
Climate sight blog
4 comments:
Support FREE exchange of carbon offsets! Say no to cap and trade!
Cap and trade and other similar economic mechanisms worked like a charm for reducing acid gas emissions. No reason why they couldn't do the same for carbon.
Cap and Trade policies being used right now or any system that allows a "free market" to decide how to limit the emissions will fail to do enough as quickly as is needed.
A better option would a rationing scheme. Take the total amount of emissions we have left before the climate change point-of-no-return. Divide that amongst every person on the planet - so we each get a fair share - and distribute it to each country based on population.
This will mean big cuts in the developed world, but actually leaves room for the developing countries to grow (initially). And it is a fair way to cap emission, also ensuring that our caps do not exceed the maximum emissions we have left before death and destruction.
George Monbiot's book Heat has a great description of how this would work. It is much better than our current policies, which are too little too late and basically pay companies to pollute.
On another note...
I just picked this book up and have been thoroughly impressed with it so far. I hope Greg can get some more sales and spread the word. It's got an amazing premise that damn-near sinks the argument of global warming.
Joshua Nelson wrote: A better option would a rationing scheme. Take the total amount of emissions we have left before the climate change point-of-no-return. Divide that amongst every person on the planet - so we each get a fair share - and distribute it to each country based on population.
In principle, the idea is good and Monbiot's solution should not be ignored. If everyone agreed on the scale and scope of what climate change may bring, then it may be better than cap and trade. But we don't.
In particular, I don't think we can truly state definitively how much CO2 emissions that "we have left" before we reach a point we can't get back from. The only more or less definite "barrier" I know of is round about 1000-1200ppm which, in the past, was a trigger for several oceanic anoxic extinction events - which are very scary click here for Wiki's definition of oceanic anoxic extinction event
How to argue with a free marketeer
"Free marketeers" need to realise that there has been no such thing for hundreds of years, nor would even they want a truly free one to develop. It would be very unpleasant. Supplying whatever someone, or some country, "demands" for a price would certainly create a rapidly growing market but what is the drawback? Without government control of things by means of the Law etc we would have drug dealers selling to anyone; children would be trafficked for child prostitution/pornography; companies would adulterate food with toxic substances (like they used to). Fraud and scams and crime of all types would be epidemic.
The "free marketeer" will then say that of course they don't want a free market in those areas which most would see as damaging or bad news. Then we have them! Of course, a rapidly changing climate would be bad for humanity so OBVIOUSLY there has to be Governmental/legal restrictions on the free market in greenhouse gas emissions. Bobs your uncle! Cap and trade! Unless the free marketeer is a Mafia "no limits" type, they must recognise that there should be controls on greenhouse gases just like we have all sorts of necessary controls and consumer protection legislation already.
Post a Comment