Comments on: Emissions Targets

By: PaddikJ

PaddikJ — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:24:49 +0000

Somewhat OT, but I note with much bemusement that Krupp & others still insist on referring to CO2 as a pollutant, which, strictly speaking, it is not. The distinction becomes decidedly non-trivial when, say, the EPA decides it is a pollutant and therefore falls under their jurisdiction and authority to regulate; thereby circumventing Congress & The President while they struggle to satisfy both national and international constituencies in a tanking economy.

The lastest ploy by the AGW crusade: Nature refuses to follow script, the global economy can’t afford its green indulgences at the moment, and the public has grown very restive. Legislation and judicial fiat aren’t producing, but we still have regulation, so voila! – it’s a pollutant.

About that summit – any conference that announces itself by trying to palm off a trivial truism as an Urgent Issue (“Earth’s climate is changing.”) doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

By: Raven

Raven — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:52:24 +0000

Bend,

As with any weightloss program the first 10% is relatively easy. So oil prices will always produce some drop in consumption. However, there is a limit because people will eventually cut out all non-essential trips and will be forced to pay as much as they are able for the remaining essential trips. The same rule is true for electrical consumption.

The efficiency paradox is seperate issue that makes all energy related policies quite problematic.

It is also worth nothing that energy already costs money so people already have an economic incentive to eliminate true waste. This means that any reduction in consumption that results from higher prices will come with a price. This price could be higher prices paid for goods because essentials are picked up at corner store instead of the local mega store. It could money lost due to lost business opportunities or it could be the capital cost of new equipment. Whatever it is there is a cost that is often forgetten.

By: maxlybbert

maxlybbert — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:24:39 +0000

I have yet to see a response to my question, which is about the historical claim Krupp has made about emissions targets.

Anyone have any thoughts on that?

I think the claim is something of a tautology. No pollution problem has been solved without being measured, and as such there has always been a “wow we have XXX p.p.m. of YY in the atmosphere, let’s lower that that to ZZZ p.p.b.”

Then again, London has been battling smog for centuries, and some of that came at a time when pollution could not be measured.

By: jae

jae — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:55:37 +0000

I may be wrong, but I think the SO2 reduction programs did not have a specific target concentration or mass limits.

By: bend

bend — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:06:27 +0000

Curt, Raven,
Thought it may be less sensitive to the law of supply and demand than, say, portable DVD players, the demand for energy and thereby carbon is not perfectly inelastic. It may have taken $4 dollar gas to slow Americans down, but people were driving less in July 2008 than they were in July 2006. If electricity prices rise, people will learn, albeit slowly, to turn lights off when they leave the room.
As far as “concrete” actions like higher fuel efficiency standards, I believe that this is a poor example. High fuel efficiency, like lower gas prices, just encourage more driving. I, for example, am taking advantage of the low gas prices now to drive across the country to see my parents. I’ve not been there for two years due to the high price of gas. In July, my wife will take the kids and drive across country in the opposite direction to see her parents.

By: Ryan Meyer

Ryan Meyer — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:52:21 +0000

While this discussion of Ps and Qs is interesting, I have yet to see a response to my question, which is about the historical claim Krupp has made about emissions targets.

Anyone have any thoughts on that?

By: Can Academy Shape U.S. Climate Choices? - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

Can Academy Shape U.S. Climate Choices? - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:31:28 +0000

[...] where they cannot just say thanks and muddle on. (Here’s an interesting observation on whether setting a hard emissions limit is the right [...]

By: stan

stan — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:01:57 +0000

This is all an argument about the contents of the script to be read by the man behind the curtain. The great OZ can issue decrees, set prices, regulate people to death all he wants, but he has no power over the weather.

My little girl likes to play pretend with her dolls. She’s cute. Watching governments play pretend? Not so cute.

If Diogenes were searching today, he’d be looking for a grownup.

By: solman

solman — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:54:54 +0000

Voters are very sensitive to prices. Witness the US reaction to $4/gallon gas.

On the other hand, voters love bold goals.

It is much easier to legislate the later (The US shall reduce per capita emissions by 80% by 2050) than the former (The US shall charge a 400% tax on all non-renewable fuel sources).

I’m sure that some advocates imagine governments in Copenhagen agreeing to bold goals, and somehow not being held to account by voters when those goals translate into serious economic consequences. Those that do, are naive.

Its encouraging to see the more realistic view that the Obama administration is taking. European nations may talk a good game, but there is no evidence that, having committed to massive reductions, they would be able to resist the internal pressures that result when those reductions translate to serious economic harm. And if they are not able to honor their commitments, the entire endeavor will fail.

By: Raven

Raven — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:44:31 +0000

Furthermore, price signals can have unexpected consequences.

For example: Flatulent cows could be curtailed by fish oils
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/30/cows.fishoil/

Innovations like this could be a carbon credit market could put huge pressure on global fish stocks as demand goes up to supply sushi for cows in developing countries.

To make matters worse, the GHGs freebies given to developing countries would likely result in a increase in cattle farming in developing countries because the potential revenue from selling carbon credits would be huge.

The more I think about it the most I realize that making CO2 emissions a tradeable commodity is a really, really dumb idea.