Comments on Mutsuyoshi Nishimura “In search of a new climate change paradigm”, 15/01/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/15/in-search-of-a-new-climate-change-paradigm/
Mutsuyoshi Nishimura's underlying core concept is attractive, that is equity and entitlement for global space.
It must be reasonably simple and practical and justifiable on the current global human rights.
That would lead naturally to equal per capita emissions entitlement globally and the subsequent global allocation of revenue from taxing emitters on an equal per capita basis.
The second point is a global carbon tax as compared to a global carbon market.
These international equity issue and efficiency will also naturally be able to deal with funding for developing countries, because they will get more revenue from the equal per capita allocation of global carbon tax revenue due to their lower per capita emissions.
Of course, a secondary question is how to deal with changes in population, given that countries have different growth rates.
But that could be dealt with after the first order principles are dealt with and an international framework agreed.
PS: 2 points: first, the difficulties in global emissions reduction could be attributed to the fact that it is the industrialised countries that don't really front up their responsibilities because they know very well that they will need to transfer any global carbon revenue to their developing counterparts under a fair game as opposed to they didn't understand the problem or did not have the analytical capacity to come up with a fair and effective framework;
second, the most efficient and equitable framework is a global carbon tax and equal per capita distribution of revenue among global citizens irrespective poor or rich, and the tax rate should be set to achieve reduction or emission levels.
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
2011-01-15
2010-08-10
Global body also needs to be accountable
Comments on MARIE DELA RAMA “Only global body can sideline saboteurs”, 10/08/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/only-global-body-can-sideline-saboteurs-20100809-11tzo.html?posted=sucessful
For most people it is difficult to know who are telling the truth and who are telling lies.
It is easy to labelling others as saboteurs, or saying some activities as "an exercise in industrial espionage of breathtaking proportions".
But why shouldn't the public be entitled to know those leakings any way, as opposed to just one side story?
Dealing with climate change as proposed by climate actionists is costly and should be properly scrutinised by interested parties and organisations. The IPCC should publish views and arguments of both sides of the debate, including for and against as well as neutral views whether they are sceptical on either side.
Any scientist could or can come out defend their reputations and works and no one can prevent them from doing it.
In terms of funding to the IPCC, either the UN or governments can increase its funding if they see it as priority.
But has it been accountable for its own failings, such as the publication of the melting of the Himalaya glaciers? How could that happen with such a body?
For most people it is difficult to know who are telling the truth and who are telling lies.
It is easy to labelling others as saboteurs, or saying some activities as "an exercise in industrial espionage of breathtaking proportions".
But why shouldn't the public be entitled to know those leakings any way, as opposed to just one side story?
Dealing with climate change as proposed by climate actionists is costly and should be properly scrutinised by interested parties and organisations. The IPCC should publish views and arguments of both sides of the debate, including for and against as well as neutral views whether they are sceptical on either side.
Any scientist could or can come out defend their reputations and works and no one can prevent them from doing it.
In terms of funding to the IPCC, either the UN or governments can increase its funding if they see it as priority.
But has it been accountable for its own failings, such as the publication of the melting of the Himalaya glaciers? How could that happen with such a body?
So easy to attribute disasters to climate change or warming
Comments on Paul Gilding “Feeling the heat”, 10/08/2010, http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/climate-change-extreme-weather-security-geopolitical
While we are seeing severe natural disasters now happening, are they all really unprecedented in our known history of the earth or human beings?
That is perhaps one of the reasons many people may be doubtful about some highly exaggerated claims.
Can anyone say honestly that if the global temperature was one or two degrees lower than it is now, we would not have any natural disasters as severe as some of the current ones we are experiencing?
While we are seeing severe natural disasters now happening, are they all really unprecedented in our known history of the earth or human beings?
That is perhaps one of the reasons many people may be doubtful about some highly exaggerated claims.
Can anyone say honestly that if the global temperature was one or two degrees lower than it is now, we would not have any natural disasters as severe as some of the current ones we are experiencing?
2010-04-13
China's emissions target and the lack of targets by others
Comments on Frank Jotzo “How might China achieve its 2020 emissions target?” 12/04/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/04/12/how-might-china-achieve-its-2020-emissions-target/
While I am not too concerned with whether China can achieve its 2020 emissions target, I am worried by the means it may employ to achieve it.
As most people are aware, the Chinese government has much more control over how businesses and people go about their businesses. That means they can direct with little consultation. That could potentially result in huge costs to the economy and affect people's living standards.
Another issue is that while parts of the international community are interested in the transparency of how China achieves its emissions target, it is more important to have the rest to have their own targets.
It would be highly hypocritical for other people to be keen talking about how to verify China's emission target without committing to reasonable targets for their own.
That is just not fair and good enough, is it?
While I am not too concerned with whether China can achieve its 2020 emissions target, I am worried by the means it may employ to achieve it.
As most people are aware, the Chinese government has much more control over how businesses and people go about their businesses. That means they can direct with little consultation. That could potentially result in huge costs to the economy and affect people's living standards.
Another issue is that while parts of the international community are interested in the transparency of how China achieves its emissions target, it is more important to have the rest to have their own targets.
It would be highly hypocritical for other people to be keen talking about how to verify China's emission target without committing to reasonable targets for their own.
That is just not fair and good enough, is it?
2010-03-18
More detail is needed of Hu Angang's climate change proposal
Comments on Peter Yuan Cai “Hu Angang and China’s climate change policy”, 18/03/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/18/hu-angang-and-chinas-climate-change-policy/
I have known Angang for a long time and he always command my respect.
He is a very versatile, productive and highly respected Chinese economist.
Having said that, I am not sure whether it is the representation of this article or his work itself, I am puzzled by what is shown in this article.
There is no way to know what HDI means and how it is calculated for each country and how the boundaries of different divisions are determined from this article. As a result, it is difficult to evaluate and comment on whether the proposal is fair or not, one of the two principles attributed to that proposal.
But it is probably possible to comment a little bit on the other principle that is efficiency.
I am not sure that said principle is met by such a proposal, given that it does not appear to be based on or equivalent to a market approach to equalise the marginal costs of emissions reduction, in a country, a region, or the whole world. At least the article even did not make it clear what is meant by efficiency, let alone how to realise that principle.
It would be more helpful if enough information is provided to enable and assist the readers to form a view.
From this article, we only read that "Hu Angang proposes an emission reduction scheme that is applicable internationally as well as domestically to China based on the principles of fairness and efficiency. He challenges the traditional dichotomy of developed countries versus developing countries in climate change debate with four new divisions based on the Human Development Index, HDI. He argues that major emitters including the United States and China should bear the brunt of responsibility for emission reduction."
But why should China be together with the US to bear the brunt of responsibility for emission reduction, given that on per capita basis, there are many countries that emit much higher emissions?
What is that rationale and is that sound?
Without enough details one is left only to wonder.
I have known Angang for a long time and he always command my respect.
He is a very versatile, productive and highly respected Chinese economist.
Having said that, I am not sure whether it is the representation of this article or his work itself, I am puzzled by what is shown in this article.
There is no way to know what HDI means and how it is calculated for each country and how the boundaries of different divisions are determined from this article. As a result, it is difficult to evaluate and comment on whether the proposal is fair or not, one of the two principles attributed to that proposal.
But it is probably possible to comment a little bit on the other principle that is efficiency.
I am not sure that said principle is met by such a proposal, given that it does not appear to be based on or equivalent to a market approach to equalise the marginal costs of emissions reduction, in a country, a region, or the whole world. At least the article even did not make it clear what is meant by efficiency, let alone how to realise that principle.
It would be more helpful if enough information is provided to enable and assist the readers to form a view.
From this article, we only read that "Hu Angang proposes an emission reduction scheme that is applicable internationally as well as domestically to China based on the principles of fairness and efficiency. He challenges the traditional dichotomy of developed countries versus developing countries in climate change debate with four new divisions based on the Human Development Index, HDI. He argues that major emitters including the United States and China should bear the brunt of responsibility for emission reduction."
But why should China be together with the US to bear the brunt of responsibility for emission reduction, given that on per capita basis, there are many countries that emit much higher emissions?
What is that rationale and is that sound?
Without enough details one is left only to wonder.
2009-11-10
Gorbachev's call for leaders' action
Comments on Mikhail Gorbachev “Tear down wall blocking our future”, 9/11/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tear-down-wall-blocking-our-future/story-e6frg6zo-1225795880053
Mr Gorbachev is a man to be remembered as accidentally contributed to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the former USSR and the East Bloc.
He did not set out to do those, but what he did, or in another word – his remarkable failures in reforming the former USSR, was the key major factor that finally resulted those to occur.
Did that represent his poor judgment back then? The answer is most likely yes.
Now he is calling for world leaders to act on climate change.
Is his judgment right now? No one knows, for now.
But actions taken to reduce the use of fossil fuels will be good in the long run, irrespective whether emissions contribute to global warming or not, because fossil fuels are limited resources.
Mr Gorbachev is a man to be remembered as accidentally contributed to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the former USSR and the East Bloc.
He did not set out to do those, but what he did, or in another word – his remarkable failures in reforming the former USSR, was the key major factor that finally resulted those to occur.
Did that represent his poor judgment back then? The answer is most likely yes.
Now he is calling for world leaders to act on climate change.
Is his judgment right now? No one knows, for now.
But actions taken to reduce the use of fossil fuels will be good in the long run, irrespective whether emissions contribute to global warming or not, because fossil fuels are limited resources.
2009-11-05
A fair deal is more important than just a deal at Copenhagen
Comments on AAP report “Copenhagen a first step, says Garnaut”, 5/11/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Copenhagen-a-first-step-says-Garnaut-XGRPF?OpenDocument
“Presenting the annual Hawke lecture in Adelaide on Wednesday, Prof Garnaut described climate change as a diabolical policy problem.”
It is disappointing to see that experts are talking about the need for all countries of substantial size to make major contributions to the solution without mentioning what is a fair deal for all countries.
It is just a strategy for rich countries to take no actions and blame developing countries for rich countries' failures.
Just think that even experts are doing this, what politicians will do?
I am aware that Garnaut has said at sometime in the future there should be a case for equal per capita entitlement of emissions. Maybe he talked about this in this lecture and the media is not interested in reporting that part.
If that is the case, Garnaut is at least thinking about a fair deal, though not for now but for the future.
“Presenting the annual Hawke lecture in Adelaide on Wednesday, Prof Garnaut described climate change as a diabolical policy problem.”
It is disappointing to see that experts are talking about the need for all countries of substantial size to make major contributions to the solution without mentioning what is a fair deal for all countries.
It is just a strategy for rich countries to take no actions and blame developing countries for rich countries' failures.
Just think that even experts are doing this, what politicians will do?
I am aware that Garnaut has said at sometime in the future there should be a case for equal per capita entitlement of emissions. Maybe he talked about this in this lecture and the media is not interested in reporting that part.
If that is the case, Garnaut is at least thinking about a fair deal, though not for now but for the future.
2009-10-13
Pragmatic measures required for reducing emissions
Comments on Giles Parkinson “Head-in-the-sand economics”, 13/10/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/CPRS-Greens-Steve-Fielding-Garnaut-Copenhagen-pd20091013-WRREF?OpenDocument&src=sph
Is the International Energy Agency god and are its projections convincing and why?
How can it represent the international community?
One has got to be realistic in the degree and the path of emissions reduction. Start with practical goals and send the correct signals to businesses and consumers. Then technical innovations and technological breakthroughs will follow and the next appropriate steps can be taken at that time.
Neither the race to bottom nor to the top is the right thing to do. Neither of them is a responsible way to resolving global warming issues.
More often than not, the Greens are environmental extremists and economic vandals. Is there any question about that?
Is the International Energy Agency god and are its projections convincing and why?
How can it represent the international community?
One has got to be realistic in the degree and the path of emissions reduction. Start with practical goals and send the correct signals to businesses and consumers. Then technical innovations and technological breakthroughs will follow and the next appropriate steps can be taken at that time.
Neither the race to bottom nor to the top is the right thing to do. Neither of them is a responsible way to resolving global warming issues.
More often than not, the Greens are environmental extremists and economic vandals. Is there any question about that?
2009-09-07
Focus on the means but how?
Comments on Bjorn Lomborg “Focus on the means”, 7/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26035132-5015664,00.html
While the means is obviously important in achieving emissions reduction, Bjorn Lomborg is wrong in arguing that the current approaches/proposals by governments will not be effective. Far from it, they are an important step towards finding the best means to achieve emissions reduction.
Bjorn Lomborg’s argument misses the main point in the international community’s global effort to combat global warming, that is both governments and the private sector will need to play a part.
Bjorn Lomborg argues mainly for governments to set aside research funding for finding the means. Why could that not be achieved through mandatory targets for emissions reduction? That will create price signals and business certainty and incentives to innovate and to find solutions to the challenges in an economic way.
Only by unleashing the innovative power of the private sector can and will the global objective be achieved with the minimum costs.
By relying only on governments, Bjorn Lomborg risks sending mixed signals to the private sector, and generate business uncertainties. That is not the right way to this global important and urgent issue of global warming. In fact it is the wrong approach.
We cannot afford any uncertainties and delaying actions. Bjorn Lomborg should not confuse people, whatever agenda he may have in arguing that way.
While the means is obviously important in achieving emissions reduction, Bjorn Lomborg is wrong in arguing that the current approaches/proposals by governments will not be effective. Far from it, they are an important step towards finding the best means to achieve emissions reduction.
Bjorn Lomborg’s argument misses the main point in the international community’s global effort to combat global warming, that is both governments and the private sector will need to play a part.
Bjorn Lomborg argues mainly for governments to set aside research funding for finding the means. Why could that not be achieved through mandatory targets for emissions reduction? That will create price signals and business certainty and incentives to innovate and to find solutions to the challenges in an economic way.
Only by unleashing the innovative power of the private sector can and will the global objective be achieved with the minimum costs.
By relying only on governments, Bjorn Lomborg risks sending mixed signals to the private sector, and generate business uncertainties. That is not the right way to this global important and urgent issue of global warming. In fact it is the wrong approach.
We cannot afford any uncertainties and delaying actions. Bjorn Lomborg should not confuse people, whatever agenda he may have in arguing that way.
2009-09-04
A global ETS would be good for everyone
Comments on Raghbendra Jha “India and the Copenhagen summit”, 4/09/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/04/india-and-the-copenhagen-summit/
If a global ETS is done on a voluntary basis and everyone has the same right to emit, I don't see any disadvantage to developing countries. To the contrary, I think it will be a good thing for both developed and developing countries, as well as the global climate.
I think if a global carbon tax and a global ETS are done on the basis of equal per capita allocation of emission rights, then it can only be a good thing to everyone.
Such a global scheme will be efficient, effective and equitable and represents the best global policy in dealing with reducing emissions.
The problem is that very few people are promoting a global ETS and a global carbon tax, due to various political reasons. It indicates a lack of leadership both at the global, international and national levels and that is a pity.
If a global ETS is done on a voluntary basis and everyone has the same right to emit, I don't see any disadvantage to developing countries. To the contrary, I think it will be a good thing for both developed and developing countries, as well as the global climate.
I think if a global carbon tax and a global ETS are done on the basis of equal per capita allocation of emission rights, then it can only be a good thing to everyone.
Such a global scheme will be efficient, effective and equitable and represents the best global policy in dealing with reducing emissions.
The problem is that very few people are promoting a global ETS and a global carbon tax, due to various political reasons. It indicates a lack of leadership both at the global, international and national levels and that is a pity.
China should be effective and practical in climate change negotiations
Comments on Stephen Howes “Can China rescue the world climate change negotiations?” 1/09/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/01/can-china-rescue-the-world-climate-change-negotiations/
China should play neither a spoiler nor a hero in global climate negotiations.
It should play an active part, as a developing country as it is and should not over commit itself to cause unnecessary damages to itself. It has done many things that caused it dearly in the past and should not repeat them.
What China can do and should do is to promote an ambitious, fair and effective global agreement to combat climate changes.
That is what China needs commit itself to do.
China should play neither a spoiler nor a hero in global climate negotiations.
It should play an active part, as a developing country as it is and should not over commit itself to cause unnecessary damages to itself. It has done many things that caused it dearly in the past and should not repeat them.
What China can do and should do is to promote an ambitious, fair and effective global agreement to combat climate changes.
That is what China needs commit itself to do.
2009-08-21
Principles for a simple, effective, efficient and equitable international agreement on global actions on climate change
Comments on Rajiv Kumar “India: Are we isolated on climate change?” 17/08/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/17/are-we-isolated-on-climate-change/
I think an effective, fair and practical international system for carbon emissions mitigation should be based on the following principles:
1. It is efficient from the global point of view, that is, to incur the least costs in achieving a given objective. This means every country needs to participate and a global tax imposed on emissions from every country.
2. It is effective, that is, it achieves the objective the target to mitigate global emissions. This means the targets of emission mitigation should be based on the most reliable scientific evidence.
3. It is fair to every country. It seems that a most likely internationally equitable approach is to have everyone at a certain given time the same "property right" of the global atmosphere, so they have the right to impose penalty on emissions from any countries. This means that the global tax should be distributed to everyone equally, irrespective which countries they are from.
4. It is simple to implement.
An international system of climate change may take many forms, but the underlying principles should be clear and well founded. An agreement based on the above principles is likely to be much superior to most systems currently discussed and debated in many countries, such as the emissions trading scheme bill in Australia recently defeated in its senate, or the similar bill in the US that passed its House of Representatives and is in front of its Senate. Those bills may aim at effecting a domestic emissions trading scheme that can be costly to administer.
Any country including both developed and developing countries alike can use these principles to formulate their negotiation strategies. India can be more proactive and effective in its attitude towards climate change and Copenhagen negotiation. A fair international system will not undermine developing countries’ interests, like India’s, but it will be in the best interest of every country.
I think an effective, fair and practical international system for carbon emissions mitigation should be based on the following principles:
1. It is efficient from the global point of view, that is, to incur the least costs in achieving a given objective. This means every country needs to participate and a global tax imposed on emissions from every country.
2. It is effective, that is, it achieves the objective the target to mitigate global emissions. This means the targets of emission mitigation should be based on the most reliable scientific evidence.
3. It is fair to every country. It seems that a most likely internationally equitable approach is to have everyone at a certain given time the same "property right" of the global atmosphere, so they have the right to impose penalty on emissions from any countries. This means that the global tax should be distributed to everyone equally, irrespective which countries they are from.
4. It is simple to implement.
An international system of climate change may take many forms, but the underlying principles should be clear and well founded. An agreement based on the above principles is likely to be much superior to most systems currently discussed and debated in many countries, such as the emissions trading scheme bill in Australia recently defeated in its senate, or the similar bill in the US that passed its House of Representatives and is in front of its Senate. Those bills may aim at effecting a domestic emissions trading scheme that can be costly to administer.
Any country including both developed and developing countries alike can use these principles to formulate their negotiation strategies. India can be more proactive and effective in its attitude towards climate change and Copenhagen negotiation. A fair international system will not undermine developing countries’ interests, like India’s, but it will be in the best interest of every country.
2009-08-17
Frontier Economics' Price must be heard
Comments on Danny Price “Tyranny of old ideas dogs Emissions Trading Scheme”, 17/08/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25937950-5013479,00.html
I don't pretend in any way that I understood Frontier Economics' modeling, but I am so encouraged by Danny Price's article arguing for genuine debate, because there is so much at stake with global warming and emissions reductions, as Price pointed out.
Price sounds genuine enough and open and transparent. Every of the country's leading political group should take a step back, be cool and have a serious rethink about how the country should go about ETS, or possibly another new one. Party politics must give way to national interest.
The government has shown common sense and demonstrated some flexibility in its approach to the renewable and ETS by agreeing to separate the two bills, so the less contentious renewable bill can pass the senate without too much problems. It should be commended by this courageous action.
It is now again a test of leadership. Let's hope God bless Australia and our political leaderships stand the test.
I don't pretend in any way that I understood Frontier Economics' modeling, but I am so encouraged by Danny Price's article arguing for genuine debate, because there is so much at stake with global warming and emissions reductions, as Price pointed out.
Price sounds genuine enough and open and transparent. Every of the country's leading political group should take a step back, be cool and have a serious rethink about how the country should go about ETS, or possibly another new one. Party politics must give way to national interest.
The government has shown common sense and demonstrated some flexibility in its approach to the renewable and ETS by agreeing to separate the two bills, so the less contentious renewable bill can pass the senate without too much problems. It should be commended by this courageous action.
It is now again a test of leadership. Let's hope God bless Australia and our political leaderships stand the test.
2009-08-10
A simple and effective principle for a global climate agreement
Comments on Yongsheng Zhang “Bush wrong on India and China and climate change”, 22/07/2008, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/07/22/bush-wrong-on-india-and-china-and-climate-change/
While there can be many different arguments, as Zhang and others may have done so, the most realistic and practical way in the most simplest manner, in concept, could be characterised as to apply a global carbon tax so to achieve whatever the target would need to be, then distribute this global revenue to the world population (maybe based on a certain time) equally, that is equal per capita.
This approach will be able to address many problems except the historical causes or contributions. But that point could be regarded as “bygone as bygone” (we won’t hold those dead people to be responsible for solving our future climate problems), if and when the current allocation can be done on an equal per capita basis.
Based on this principle, other scheme broadly consistent with this can be designed and implemented.
While there can be many different arguments, as Zhang and others may have done so, the most realistic and practical way in the most simplest manner, in concept, could be characterised as to apply a global carbon tax so to achieve whatever the target would need to be, then distribute this global revenue to the world population (maybe based on a certain time) equally, that is equal per capita.
This approach will be able to address many problems except the historical causes or contributions. But that point could be regarded as “bygone as bygone” (we won’t hold those dead people to be responsible for solving our future climate problems), if and when the current allocation can be done on an equal per capita basis.
Based on this principle, other scheme broadly consistent with this can be designed and implemented.
2009-07-31
Carbon trading versus carbon tax, and other issues
Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “Four carbon controversies”, 31/07/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Four-carbon-controversies-pd20090731-UFSZY?OpenDocument&src=sph
The science of greenhouse gases and its effects on global warming must show it is correct without reasonable doubts. There is a danger that it is spurious science, because of the short period of data and some possible other reasons that may highly correlate to carbon gases emissions.
A universal carbon tax in a country and using that revenue to subsidise some consumers and businesses are a better way than carbon trading, in terms of universal coverage, efficiency, minimised costs and avoiding the arbitrary allocation of emissions permits. It has its drawback in that it is not known how much the tax should be to achieve a certain reduction target, similar to using interest rate for macroeconomic control.
Nuclear should be debated. Australia is deeply contradictory in its approach to the nuclear issue. It has been a matter of being indulgent because of its lucks with natural endowments, its immature emotions and lack of understanding of nuclear safety and wastes. It needs a change and it is time to change.
Arvi Parbo is correct in one narrow sense, but is plainly wrong. It is correct that in the long term, if developing countries don’t join the actions, there is no hope to achieve emissions reduction to a desirable level. But that does not mean that they have and must join the actions immediately as required for developed nations. Once the developed nations start reducing their emissions seriously, then it is the time to discuss with the developing nations for their participation and the mechanisms for doing that.
So Arvi Parbo is confusing the issues unnecessarily and risks muddy the water and undermining the global efforts all together, unless that is his / her intention to do so.
The science of greenhouse gases and its effects on global warming must show it is correct without reasonable doubts. There is a danger that it is spurious science, because of the short period of data and some possible other reasons that may highly correlate to carbon gases emissions.
A universal carbon tax in a country and using that revenue to subsidise some consumers and businesses are a better way than carbon trading, in terms of universal coverage, efficiency, minimised costs and avoiding the arbitrary allocation of emissions permits. It has its drawback in that it is not known how much the tax should be to achieve a certain reduction target, similar to using interest rate for macroeconomic control.
Nuclear should be debated. Australia is deeply contradictory in its approach to the nuclear issue. It has been a matter of being indulgent because of its lucks with natural endowments, its immature emotions and lack of understanding of nuclear safety and wastes. It needs a change and it is time to change.
Arvi Parbo is correct in one narrow sense, but is plainly wrong. It is correct that in the long term, if developing countries don’t join the actions, there is no hope to achieve emissions reduction to a desirable level. But that does not mean that they have and must join the actions immediately as required for developed nations. Once the developed nations start reducing their emissions seriously, then it is the time to discuss with the developing nations for their participation and the mechanisms for doing that.
So Arvi Parbo is confusing the issues unnecessarily and risks muddy the water and undermining the global efforts all together, unless that is his / her intention to do so.
2009-07-30
Carbon capturing is testing
Comments on Keith Orchison “Capturing the carbon debate”, 30/07/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/CCS-pd20090730-UF2U7?OpenDocument&src=sph
The carbon capturing thinking seems simple enough to get people’s imagination and I personally very much hope that can work.
It, however, may eventually be proven to be a fanciful thinking from existing heavy carbon emitters like coal fired power plants.
The world needs to make a concerted effort in making sure whether carbon capturing can work quickly, because investment decisions for many power plants are urgently pending on it.
How long has this technology been discussed already? How much progress has been made so far? Where or what are the difficulties or sticking point for further progress?
The carbon capturing thinking seems simple enough to get people’s imagination and I personally very much hope that can work.
It, however, may eventually be proven to be a fanciful thinking from existing heavy carbon emitters like coal fired power plants.
The world needs to make a concerted effort in making sure whether carbon capturing can work quickly, because investment decisions for many power plants are urgently pending on it.
How long has this technology been discussed already? How much progress has been made so far? Where or what are the difficulties or sticking point for further progress?
2009-07-25
Biggest economic upheaval in most lifetimes ahead? - you must be kidding
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Biggest economic upheaval in most lifetimes ahead”, 25/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25832139-17301,00.html
Shanahan says:
“AUSTRALIA now faces its biggest economic upheaval since the war with the introduction of an emissions trading scheme designed to push up the price of carbon and cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
“This is because the Coalition, under the threat of a double-dissolution election, has blinked and will pass Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme in some form, and soon.”
I doubt the alarming headline will reflect the truth. The Australian legislation is not necessarily more radical than the US one, or the most likely policy positions of the Europe Union countries.
It is unlikely that all these countries will see the “biggest economic upheaval in most lifetimes ahead”. So how could it happen to Australia if it takes a similar approach to emissions reduction? It is unconvincing, to say the least.
The federal opposition’s position to wait to see what the other countries – China, the US and India, will do is purely a disguise. The US has past its legislation in the House already. Neither China nor India is likely to reduce their emissions until the rich countries reduce theirs by a significant degree. Yes they may agree to reduce emission intensity. But it is very different from reducing emissions.
So what the oppositin is waiting for? They just don’t want to take any actions in reducing emissions. Nothing more than that.
They will fail, one way or another, because most Australians want to take real and realistic actions. The opposition will be left behind, or dragged along, unwillingly though.
Shanahan says:
“AUSTRALIA now faces its biggest economic upheaval since the war with the introduction of an emissions trading scheme designed to push up the price of carbon and cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
“This is because the Coalition, under the threat of a double-dissolution election, has blinked and will pass Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme in some form, and soon.”
I doubt the alarming headline will reflect the truth. The Australian legislation is not necessarily more radical than the US one, or the most likely policy positions of the Europe Union countries.
It is unlikely that all these countries will see the “biggest economic upheaval in most lifetimes ahead”. So how could it happen to Australia if it takes a similar approach to emissions reduction? It is unconvincing, to say the least.
The federal opposition’s position to wait to see what the other countries – China, the US and India, will do is purely a disguise. The US has past its legislation in the House already. Neither China nor India is likely to reduce their emissions until the rich countries reduce theirs by a significant degree. Yes they may agree to reduce emission intensity. But it is very different from reducing emissions.
So what the oppositin is waiting for? They just don’t want to take any actions in reducing emissions. Nothing more than that.
They will fail, one way or another, because most Australians want to take real and realistic actions. The opposition will be left behind, or dragged along, unwillingly though.
2009-07-13
Why can't the government prove global warming?
Comments on ABC report "'Inconvenient fact': Fielding courts climate change rebels" by Emma Rodgers, 13/07/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/13/2624157.htm?section=justin
What has the government done to easy or answer Senator Fielding's concerns? Why can't the government and its many scientists answer simple questions, if they have the facts and scientific evidence? It is very strange indeed.
The government must convince people. Global warming is not an issue of ideology and the government should not treat such an important issue that way. It must be open and transparent, using scientific evidence to make the case. Otherwise it will lose its credibility in the issue.
It should not be difficult for the government to prove the case. If it can’t do so, it would demonstrate how incompetent the government is.
What has the government done to easy or answer Senator Fielding's concerns? Why can't the government and its many scientists answer simple questions, if they have the facts and scientific evidence? It is very strange indeed.
The government must convince people. Global warming is not an issue of ideology and the government should not treat such an important issue that way. It must be open and transparent, using scientific evidence to make the case. Otherwise it will lose its credibility in the issue.
It should not be difficult for the government to prove the case. If it can’t do so, it would demonstrate how incompetent the government is.
2009-07-10
US congress acts like a bully
Comments on Andrew W. Shoyer “US climate change bill – how international provisions work”, 10/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/10/us-climate-change-bill-how-international-provisions-work/
The US congress is acting as an international bully! The US has dragged international efforts to reduce emissions for many years. Now once it starts to do something, its wants to impose trade sanctions, even though sanctions will not start until 2020.
What a bully it is!
The problem is whether it will have the international influence or not in that regard by then. International economies will change and with them influences. Besides, few other countries will act as the US congress wishes to.
The US congress will need to wake up to world new reality.
The US congress is acting as an international bully! The US has dragged international efforts to reduce emissions for many years. Now once it starts to do something, its wants to impose trade sanctions, even though sanctions will not start until 2020.
What a bully it is!
The problem is whether it will have the international influence or not in that regard by then. International economies will change and with them influences. Besides, few other countries will act as the US congress wishes to.
The US congress will need to wake up to world new reality.
2009-07-06
Tony Blair can play a useful role in combating global warming
Comments on Tony Blair “Seven proven policies that will help build a cleaner planet”, 6/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25737023-5013480,00.html
Mr Blair’s arguments are clear and powerful. They indicate that ambitious goals of emission reductions are not only desirable and inevitable, but perfectly achievable.
While the long term goals of much higher reductions by 2050 are important themselves, the most important step is the intermediate goals for 2020. For the 2020 goals, a workable and effective international agreement to be negotiated late this year in Copenhagen will be essential.
Now there are enormous momentums towards that agreement, following the US landmark bill passed by its House of Representatives recently. Once the US joins the international community’s efforts, most things will fall into order. Europe should continue to lead the international efforts as it has done in the past.
This will not only send powerful and unambiguous signals to every country and the private sector, but also remove an important stumbling block for developing countries to join in. Innovations from the private sector assisted by government policies will find new ways to reduce emissions at much lower costs and make the reduction tasks easier to achieve.
Mr Blair’s arguments are clear and powerful. They indicate that ambitious goals of emission reductions are not only desirable and inevitable, but perfectly achievable.
While the long term goals of much higher reductions by 2050 are important themselves, the most important step is the intermediate goals for 2020. For the 2020 goals, a workable and effective international agreement to be negotiated late this year in Copenhagen will be essential.
Now there are enormous momentums towards that agreement, following the US landmark bill passed by its House of Representatives recently. Once the US joins the international community’s efforts, most things will fall into order. Europe should continue to lead the international efforts as it has done in the past.
This will not only send powerful and unambiguous signals to every country and the private sector, but also remove an important stumbling block for developing countries to join in. Innovations from the private sector assisted by government policies will find new ways to reduce emissions at much lower costs and make the reduction tasks easier to achieve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
