Global warming action - discussing alternatives

Global Warming is a natural phenomena that no amount of legislation can do anything about! Bravo for those who realize this and accept it!

Well, Donald, it's clear that some people don't want action to be taken, but the idea here is that various alternatives of taking action are discussed, preferably by using arguments.

There are a few easy steps we can do without doing serious harm to the economy.

1) BAN THE NIMBY. There are a number of major wind powered projects that were killed because of NIMBY (not in my back yard). Rich people in the wonder state of Mass (Insanity) complained that the wind mills would mar their million dollar views of the ocean. Windmills on Long Island were stoped for similiar reasons even though they were far off shore in the Atlantic ocean.

2) Promote solar power. Even if we can get a solar power panel on every residential roof, we simply don't have the technology and infrastructure to get those things integrated into the power grid. We can put people in orbit for months at and end yet we can't integrate a million small power systems into a collective whole?

3) Encourage and promote a real speed limit. No more mini vans going 75 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. All cars drive better when they drive at reasonable rates and the gas guzzlers are the least aerodynamic of them all.

4) Encourage (gasp) more cars? Well consider this, the average family has a mini van to carry all the kids. That uses a lot of gas. What car do they use to make the emergancy stop to the grocery? The minivan! Encourage a pure electric car for small around the town traveling.

We'll have a real chance for a better global warming bill in 2009 with a new president and congress. That means that now's the time to discuss and lobby for what should be in that bill. Something like Hansen's proposal makes sense. As for feebates they would be a great local measure but as proposed they're not meant for a national bill. But if you have a tax or fee for all carbon emissions and then the money goes back into research or incentives for alternative energy isn't this basically the equivalent of a national feebate?

Wind is the way to go right now--it's extremely competitive with coal and other fossil fuels and doesn't have the negative environmental effects. We should also look into expanding natural gas use, perhaps through CNG busses in our major cities (infrastructure for a national CNG program would be too expensive). At the moment solar's too expensive until silicon production is increase or new technology comes out.

The canard known as "global warming" is not settled Science, and the fact that over 31,000 Scientists agree, addresses the "arguments" question.

And, also, Donald is correct...WE cannot control the cyclical nature of Natural Science.

Please read Invisible Hand for a true solution which requires no government action and no taxes of any kind.

Ethan: "if you have a tax or fee for all carbon emissions and then the money goes back into research or incentives for alternative energy isn't this basically the equivalent of a national feebate?"

A feebate combines two elements, i.e. fees that discourage consumers from buying polluting products, and rebates on better alternatives. This ensures that the money does benefit alternatives that are readily available to consumers.

By setting simple criteria, such as the insistance that alternatives must be clean and safe, consumer choice is optimized, while market mechanisms can sort out what works best.

Using the proceeds of fees to fund local rebates, that makes a feebate budget-neutral and avoids that money raised in one area is diverted elsewhere. This will also ensure that funding is allocated according to what makes most economic sense in a given area. A feebate policy can easily be implemented locally, using the proceeds of fees to fund local alternatives in that very area, ensuring that most money is used where change is needed most.

Furthermore, feebates send out a clear signal to both consumers and investors that it makes financial sense to make the shift. The fees can create a pool of money big enough for the better alternative to rapidly grow in marketshare. As a result, both consumer actions and investor confidence will back up commercial initiatives. People will recognize the alternative industries as good job and business opportunities. On top of the reduction in prices facilitated by the feebate policy, economies of scale will over time further reduce the price of products.

A feebate policy minimizes the risk of nurturing a government bureaucracy that feeds on tax revenues and wastes money by favoratism. The risk is not just that the money gets wasted. Additionally, such a bureaucracy will consume ever larger parts of the proceeds and will seek ways to maximize the proceeds, e.g. by giving undeserved support to the industries that generate the proceeds, thus making the policy counter-productive.

All such characteristics make that a framework of feebates is the most effective way to achieve the desired shift to clean and safe energy alternatives.

I advocate that, at a global level, there should be a commitment to reduce emissions, backed up by sanctions against places that fail to do so. As said, I'm convinced that local feebates are the most effective way to reduce emissions. At the same time, I advocate that, as long as targets are reached, local areas should decide how to reduce emissions in their area (as well as spill-over). After all, conditions may differ from area to area, so some technologies will work better in one area than in another area. The added advantage of feebates is that they can be implemented in different ways at local levels. There does not have to be a single policy that is implemented in the same way all over the world. This flexibility makes that feebates can appeal more to areas that have specific circumstances making a universal policy unattractive for people in those areas.

Donald is right, no amount of human legislation will have any affect on what is a natural process. All the "solutions" you mentioned are ones that will increase bureaucracy which then makes this 'problem' self perpetual because of self interest.

You are right that it is likely we will end up with something on order of this Lieberman/Warner disaster come 2009, more the pity. The EU's attempts to do something similar have produced nothing but noise and cost billions while reducing carbon not an iota.

While you produce some real fine common sense articles Sam, on what individuals (voluntarily) can do, your series of proposals to use government force on only Western populations is just plain wrong

Charles: "All the 'solutions' you mentioned are ones that will increase bureaucracy which then makes this 'problem' self perpetual because of self interest."

The framework of feebates that I propose minimizes the risk of feeding bureaucracy, whereas the current bureaucracy hands out billions of taxpayers' money to effectively sabotage the clean and safe alternatives that we so desperately need.

Charles: "You are right that it is likely we will end up with something on order of this Lieberman/Warner disaster come 2009, more the pity. The EU's attempts to do something similar have produced nothing but noise and cost billions while reducing carbon not an iota."

I agree that carbon trading is not very effective and is prone to feed bureaucracy and lead to fraud, favoratism, corruption, etc, etc. So, let's discuss the alternatives, and let's do so by adding arguments.

Charles: "..your series of proposals to use government force on only Western populations is just plain wrong."

We need an international commitment to reduce emissions. Such an agreement can and will be reached by 2009 at the latest, since virtually all political parties around the world support this. China will be part of that, as China faces environmental catastrophe more than most other places. The agreement should include the threat of sanctions, such as tariffs on products from non-cooperative nations. The EC is ready to impose such tariffs. The agreement should leave it up to each nation what policies to implement, as long as targets are reached.

Meanwhile, the US should start now with the shift to electric cars and to energy that is clean and safe. Reducing oil imports makes financial sense, it means less national debt and budget deficits. We should use this opportunity to innovate and create new jobs in areas like electric cars, solar and wind energy, making the electric grid smarter, etc. Reducing pollution will also reduce illness and will help the environment and species that are under threat. Feebates are the most effective way to achieve this.

Sam. You have convinced me that feebates is a better policy choice than a carbon tax, even if that tax were offset by a reduction in the income tax. But the congress seems only to be seriously considering cap-and-trade, which is worse than a carbon tax. Do you know if congress has even heard of feebates?

Steve: "..congress seems only to be seriously considering cap-and-trade, which is worse than a carbon tax. Do you know if congress has even heard of feebates?"

Good point, Steve, I keep writing about feebates in the hope that more people will find my writings as they search for specific keywords. At the same time, I hope that my writing doesn't become too repetitive for those who have already read some of my articles.

The idea of feebates has been around for a long time. Maryland enacted a feebate law in 1991, but it remained shelved for a decade, as the Bush administration threatened to overrule it. In 2001, Maryland repealed the legislation.

I suggest that more people call members of Congress to ask about their position on feebates as an instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They can be reached on one of these toll-free numbers:
1-800-828-0498
1-800-459-1887
1-800-614-2803
There are operators on duty 24 hours a day. Just ask to be connected to one of your senators or your house representative and they'll put you through.

To find your Representative in the House, click on the following link:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

To find your senator, click on the following link:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC

I'm not enough of an economist to make a definitive statement about carbon tax vs. feebates, but I don't see anything wrong with feebates.

And now for something I feel strongly about...

To Mark-John K.: the 31,000 scientists you refer to are part of a hoax, and not a very elaborate hoax, since even the person whose institute issued the report says it is meaningless. Some of the people who have "signed" this are long dead. The document itself is not recent and takes no account of any recent data.

Most telling of all, this "petition" was put together by probably the single most-reviled, so-called scientists in 40 years- a disgraceful shill for tobacco companies who took good money to lie, and continue to lie, about the lack of dangerous health effects from cigarettes and tobacco. Almost none of the signatories are climate scientists and the institute in Oregon that released the petition is run by a wacko ex-scientist who was a real biochemist many years ago and hasn't done anything except make news about himself and the most bizarre fringes of pseudoscience since being thrown out of Caltech in a disagreement with his former mentor, Linus Pauling (who is one of my scientific heroes, probably nuts himself by that time).

It pays to read beyond the headlines that confirm your prejudices and decide if the material makes any sense at all. This petition you refer to, Mark, is only ever mentioned (in a positive light) by people who literally know nothing about what they are discussing.

Just for those who dissent on political grounds, no matter what the facts indicate, a special report courtesy of your own leader of the free world:

White House Acknowledges Human Influence on Global Warming...

Thanks for posting that, James, to continue emitting greenhouse gases are we're doing now is clearly NOT an option. Now is the time for the various policies to be discussed, and I do hope the issue will get the media attention it deserves.

Sam: "I suggest that more people call members of Congress to ask about their position on feebates as an instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They can be reached on one of these toll-free numbers:
1-800-828-0498
1-800-459-1887
1-800-614-2803"

Thanks for your response. I will do this, of course. I am also thinking that in the event that Obama wins in November, it would be perhaps a shortcut to suggest Amory Lovins for energy secretary. I don't appear to be the only one thinking that.

Yes, that would be great, Steve, good to see more people thinking along those lines. Let's keep spreading the word, cheers!

Aloha Sam,
The best way to advance a cleaner society is to not stand in the way of the companies developing cleaner technology.
To allow credits and benefits for investors supporting these industries and to keep our economy strong.
Any tax on carbon (no matter the name) will be detrimental to our economy and will hinder the development of alternatives.
You laud "James Hansen recently proposed a carbon tax," and I have to admit it would lessen the impact on the lower income in our society when compared to any other carbon tax. But it is still a tax and would restrict our economy and reduce the investment in alternatives.
BTW Hansen calls for 100% of the tax to be rebated back to society but all taxes have an administration fee associated with it so that would be impossible.
It is also important to note this example, The U.K.'s carbon tax collects approx. 800 million pounds every year and every single pence is rebated to the lower income to help lessen the effects of the tax, meaning there is no direct benefit to the development of alternatives.
If they removed the tax and imposed credits, benefits and incentives for developing alternatives then alternatives would be growing at a much greater rate.

As you stated in your article, "That gives us some time to discuss alternatives." we do have time and it's not just because the bill didn't pass but also because a recent study of the latest IPCC report casts even a greater shadow on its accuracies.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/
The authors of this study used these forecasting principles to audit the IPCC report. They found that:
"Out of the 140 forecasting principles, 127 principles are relevant to the procedures used to arrive at the climate projections in the IPCC report.
Of these 127, the methods described in the report violated 60 principles.
An additional 12 forecasting principles appear to be violated, and there is insufficient information in the report to assess the use of 38.
As a result of these violations of forecasting principles, the forecasts in the IPCC report are invalid."
Considering the findings of this report we should continue the improvement in a reasonable manner NOT imposing penalties on products we "think" are the problem thereby harming our economy and slowing the growth of alternatives but instead, offering alternatives the support they need through incentives, credits and rebates.

Dan, as said, to continue emitting greenhouse gases are we're doing now is clearly NOT an option - it would ruin both the environment and the economy, which is why it isn't supported by any political party. The IPCC was too conservative in its projections and I'm convinced they will correct this next time. As I said in the article, I am convinced that a framework of feebates is the most effective way to achieve reductions in emissions.

Sam,
The evidence continues to pile up that the scientific practices of the IPCC are flawed and therefore their findings and declarations unreliable.
There is no evidence that man made carbon is what is driving the rise in temperature of our planet.
To impose any tax to constrict its output is unnecessary and will hurt our economy and society as a whole.
The only wise option is to support alternatives through incentives and other positive measures NOT through punative taxes.

Dan: "The evidence continues to pile up that the scientific practices of the IPCC are flawed and therefore their findings and declarations unreliable."

According to an economist and a marketing professor? LOL!!!

I've informed you numerous times that no scientific organization worldwide - not one - disputes IPCC. You, on the other hand, keep referring to "studies" or "analyses" by politically motivated organizations - The Heartland Institute, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, The Fraser Institute - and now The National Center for Policy Analysis. It is ludicrous to compare these "institutes" with the world's scientific organizations, but you continue to do so anyway. Very strange.....

Steve,
Your only argument against the facts I present is to try and minimize them and the reason you do is because you can not offer any evidence against them.

"I've informed you numerous times that no scientific organization worldwide"

It's just a matter of time.

Dan, it's not the IPCC's task to do scientific research or to produce evidence. Instead, the IPCC's role is to review the existing body of evidence, precisely because some people said they were still unconvinced that research findings were uniquivocal. Well, the conclusion is that research findings are unequivocal, Dan, that means there is no ambiguity; it's singularly clear, unmistakably, or unquestionably clear that the existing evidence tells us that humans are causing global warming. If anyone had come across any new research findings that would throw any new light on this, that would have been all over the news so by now. It hasn't, Dan, stop acting like a cry baby.

Dan: "Your only argument against the facts I present is to try and minimize them and the reason you do is because you can not offer any evidence against them."

The "fact" is that no scientific organization worldwide disputes IPCC. That's a "fact" you have yet to deal with.

Dan: "It's just a matter of time."

I see.... Well, I wouldn't suggest holding your breath.

"I see.... Well, I wouldn't suggest holding your breath."
Not gonna Steve I'm just gonna watch untill it happens.

"Dan, stop acting like a cry baby."

Sam,
It doesn't matter if the IPCC doesn't develop the "science" If the science they receive is bad then Bad science = Bad results, or garbage in garbage out and all of that.

If they are the ones putting all of this information together and making predictions (forecasts) and they are violation nearly half of the principals of forecasting related to this type of research then you will have bad forecasts plain and simple.

Dan, stop acting like a cry baby.

I'm afraid nothing will be done until the lobbyists are thrown out of Washington and neither party is willing to do that.

A prime example is my new congressman who spent $600,000+ to buy a $189,000 a year job.

"Dan, stop acting like a cry baby."
Sam please explain how I am acting like a cry baby.

I am simply presenting factual information concerning the falibility of the IPCC and their conclusions, it certainly not I who am acting like a cry baby.
Cry baby's are those who have no argument so they pitch a fit. And I am the only one in this thread who is posting an argument....at least one based on fact.

Sam,
Do you have any facts to counter forecasting princepals and the study of the inaccuracies of the IPCC?

You haven't got an argument, Dan. The IPCC was too conservative in its projections and I'm convinced they will correct this next time. Such projections are made for best case/worst case scenarios, rather than by using a correct/incorrect dichotomy. The IPCC's conclusion that human activity is responsible for global warming stands.

As I said, some companies wasting millions on efforts to create doubts about that IPCC conclusion - if they really could find anything of substance, it would have been all over the news by now. It hasn't.

Don: "I'm afraid nothing will be done until the lobbyists are thrown out of Washington and neither party is willing to do that. A prime example is my new congressman who spent $600,000+ to buy a $189,000 a year job."

I'm convinced there will be big changes once there's a new congress and president next year, Don. Also, the Internet becomes ever more effective in exposing politicians who make false promises.

Sam: "I'm convinced there will be big changes once there's a new congress and president next year...."

A filibuster-proof senate is a tall order for dems, even with reps in such a state of disrepute.

Sam (to Dan): "You haven't got an argument...."

Dan seems to confuse "having an arguement" with "being arguementative". His statement, "I'm just gonna watch untill it happens," is effectively an admission that he doesn't have an arguement - at least not at this time.

Sam,
It doesn't matter what the IPCC reports.
If it is based upon bad science and/and improper scientific proceedure (such as the example below) the report is not valid and is unreliable.

This is where the faith part of being a global warmist comes in, you reject any information contraty to what you believe simply out of hand.

Madhav Khandekar, who has 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process." The seriously flawed IPCC process led some reviewers to withdraw from participation and even sign petitions against the IPCC report which they are alleged to have supported. (One highly qualified scientist was told he couldn't have his name removed from the IPCC report—until he threatened to sue the IPCC.) A U.S. Senate Report released December 20, 2007 and updated February 2, 2008, declares that over 400 prominent scientists disputed man-made global warming claims in 2007. And it states that "many" of these were "current and former participants in the UN IPCC [who] criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore."
For the first time, thanks to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, the IPCC revealed comments on its report by individual reviewers for its Working Group I because it is located in the U.S. The comments cover eleven chapters of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. 308 reviewers made comments, only 32 commented on more than three chapters, and only five commented on all eleven chapters. John McLean, an Australian climate analyst with more than 20 years experience, has written: "Chapter 9 is the most important chapter of the entire report because it is where the report states, 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.' The IPCC leads us to believe this statement is supported by a large number of reviewers. We often hear reference to 2,500 scientists supporting the IPCC findings....In fact only 62 reviewers commented on this chapter..." and more than half of them had a vested interest in the chapter or were tainted in some other way. Furthermore, the IPCC editors rejected almost 60 % of the comments on this chapter. Thus there was very little support indeed for what was the principal conclusion of the report.

http://forces.org/Forces_Articles/article_viewer.php?id=580

So lets just make sure we are clear on this;

The editors of the IPCC report rejected more than half of the comments of the "EXPERT REVIEWERS" who are supposed to validate the findings of the report?
Yah that sounds objective!

Well, that's precisely the task of the IPCC, Dan, i.e. sorting through the various studies on specific issues in order to sum up the bigger picture. As I also said twice before, Dan, in regard to projections and estimates of specific forcing, the IPCC has been too conservative and I'm convinced they will change that in their next report, but that doesn't change the bigger picture, which has been the same for many years and which tells us unequivocally that humans are causing global warming. There is no ambiguity, Dan, it's singularly, unmistakably, and unquestionably clear.

This persistent failure to understand the role of the IPCC doesn't give you much overall credibility, Dan, and flashes big red warning lights regarding your advocacy of nuclear power. Waving away important concerns about nuclear (such as about economics, safety, security and political structure) with the rhetoric that there was not enough proof for such concerns, that can only add further concerns that nuclear isn't safe and that those in charge of nuclear facilities will ignore the best scientific advice on safety and security.

I suggest that future posts here will focus on what's the best action plan. In my view, that is a framework of feebates.

"I suggest that future posts here will focus on what's the best action plan. In my view, that is a framework of feebates."

I will take that to mean that if I don't play by your rules on your play ground and don't stop posting information that you don't like you will start deleting my posts, right Sam?
O.K. let's try this.
Is it O.K. that I respond to your personal attacks against my character and credibility?
After all I have up till now only brought examples of why we should question the findings of a third party because of doubtful practices and you have responded in return by attacking my credibility in your last post.
I would think that instead of personal attacks you would find some way to defend the IPCC that would bolster their credibility.

In the least we need to do nothing concerning global warming, at best we need to get out of the way of the companies developing them and the investors wanting to incvesting in those companies. To do anytning more than incentives and tax breaks will further degrade our economy and slow down the advancement of alternatives.
All tax scheems will cause a rise in consumer prices at all levels and reduce the ability of people to both purchase alternatives and invest in companies developing alternatives.

The economy is best served by a shift away from fossil fuel, towards cleaner cars, renewable energy, etc. We need to include a fee in the price of polluting products, in order to prevent that taxpayers will be presented with the bill for their pollution. The best way to mitigate such pollution is to use the proceeds of such fees for local rebates on better alternatives. To use such proceeds for tax breaks or other incentives is less effective.

"The economy is best served by a shift away from fossil fuel, towards cleaner cars, renewable energy, etc."
How so?
How does raising prices best serve the economy? How does increasing fuel prices best serve the economy?
How does it help the poor of our society? Or the elderly who can't even afford to heat their homes at the current prices?

1,138,527 have signed the petition to tell congress to allow for more domestic drilling.
http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

the public wants relief from high energy prices they will not allow taxes that will raise prices even further.

If there were really a "Climate Crisis" maybe a tax might be in order but even the IPCC admits that the earth has stopped warming and that there has been no temperature rise for years now even though we continue to pump out more and more of the gases you say that are the cause of this non existant warming.

Taxes will serve to do nothing more than to harm society where on the other hand upstart companys like this www.pacificsunlight.net are building hope for the future of alternatives.

Dan: "How does increasing fuel prices best serve the economy. How does it help the poor of our society? Or the elderly who can't even afford to heat their homes at the current prices?"

As said, Dan, I suggest that future posts here will focus on what's the best action plan, which - in my view - is a framework of feebates. If you haven't got anything to contribute that makes sense, Dan, than I suggest you stop posting. As I said, the shift from fossil fuel to clean and safe alternatives benefits the aconomy in many ways, it reduces reliance on imports, creates domestic jobs and result in better infrastructure. The most effective way to facilitate this shift is to impose fees on polluting proucts and use the proceeds of on local rebates on better alternatives. The poor and the elderly will benefit most from cheaper prices for clean and safe energy, transport, etc.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has released a new GHG Emissions Reduction Plan calling for implementation of the California Clean Car law which is currently held up by the denial fo an EPA waiver. It includes the Pavley efficiency standards and also calls for development and implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

CARB currently plans to pursue one of two possible strategies to "backstop" the Pavley regulations if they cannot be implemented. The law states that in the absence of the proposed Pavley regulations, ARB shall implement alternative regulations to control mobile sources to achieve equivalent or greater greenhouse gas reductions.

Specifically mentioned is a feebate proposal in which fees on the purchase of high greenhouse gas emitting vehicles would be returned as rebates to buyers of low greenhouse gas emitting vehicles. The fee schedule would need to be designed to obtain cumulative emission reductions equivalent to those that would have been achieved under the Pavley regulations.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/06/california-air.html