If you put the words “carbon trading” into the blog search engine you will see that I have been consistently critical of carbon trading in this blog since December 2007. I have critically written about carbon trading many times since I started these posts. I have taken the view that it is a waste of time and money and will not reduce carbon emissions. I have been criticised in my views by bankers, politicians and civil servants, and many times felt like a lone voice against carbon trading as one organisation after another adopted its principles.
I hope that the tide is turning now. A group of academics from Imperial College, the London School of Economics, and the University of Oxford and many other prestigious centres of thinking have now made me less lonely in my opinions by publishing a report “How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course”. They argue that the strategy of carbon trading has failed so far and will fail us even more in the future. They urge measures – improving energy efficiency and using more renewable very low carbon energy, which they call “decarbonising” energy.
One of the group, Professor Gwyn Prins, who is a history and politics specialist, says that emissions are still rising and in fact are being permitted to rise by Kyoto and the world’s various carbon trading schemes. The paper’s 12 co-authors come from leading research institutes in England, Germany, Finland, Canada, USA, Australia and Japan.
I would argue with the title, ““How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course”. I do not think that we can say that we can get climate policy back on course because I do not think that climate policy has ever been on course to save the planet; almost every aspect of every nations’ climate policy as well as the broader international polices off too little to make a difference and when the policies make claims for the future do that too little too late. I suggest that they omit the word “back” from the title.
The report identifies that between 1990 and 2000 the carbon intensity for every additional $1000 of gross domestic product was 0.27 tonnes. From 2001 to 2006 that figure rose to virtually double – 0.53 tonnes per $1,000 of GDP.
What this means is that economic growth, beloved of politicians as the panacea to all ills, not only adds carbon emissions by virtue of its growth but also the amount of emissions per unit of economic growth has nearly doubled in the past ten years. Therefore, it is argued that the policies for climate change and in particular trade and cap schemes, are not making any difference.
The authors of the report cite the Kaya Identity in aid of their proposition favouring measures rather than trading; this is an equation which claims to calculate emissions by an equation using four topics – population, GDP per capita, energy use per unit of GDP and carbon emissions per unit of energy consumed. The authors seem to regard the Kaya Identity as proven and unchallengeable. I have looked at it but have not yet been able to decide whether the Kaya Identity’s equation is right or not.
I do know, from common sense as opposed to mathematics, that the only way to reduce emissions is to save energy, not use energy unnecessarily, use benign energy rather than malignant energy and make polluters pay for the pollution. I provided more details about these principles in “the Energy Age”. This adds up (inter alia) in my mathematics to measures to conserve energy and to use clean renewable energy (not dirty renewable energy) and my common sense conclusions seem, according to the scientists, come to the same conclusions as their mathematics.
Some environmentalists feel that changing course (as they see it) would be harmful. I disagree. There is no point in sailing away from your goal in the opposite direction, which is the course that policymakers have set and the course that the planet is sailing.
You can read the report at
Filed under: carbon dioxide, carbon emissions, carbon trading, climate change, energy, global warming | Tagged: climate policy, economic growth, Energy Age, How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course, Imperial College, kaya identity, the London School of Economics, the University of Oxford
I too dislike what we are doing on the pay to pollute policy, if oil is the driving force for this policy then soon come the end of this era.
Who on earth do those who want to pay to pollute think they are, the develloped world has had a really good run on the backs of everyone else, and we are now asking the developing world not to do what we have done, don’t think for one minute that they are not going to do what the hell they want and keep up with us Jones’s and why shouldn’t they, we really set a good influence didn’t we I LOL.
Our problems are just starting to take effect in only five years from now the preverbial is really going to start hitting the fan.
In Afganistan today we are having a real hard time in keeping the upper hand, as time goes the asian economy is going to rise to that of the rest of the world meaning that there will be a stead influx of sympathisers to make it a long term problem for the English and many European armies, so they will not be able to keep the peace, then another Vietnam will occur, the USA is the only outfit with the man power and wealth to make a real difference, they will step in as they did back in the 70’s, once they like the USSR fail, then things will be much worse than it was before the Taliban, and acsess to the oil in the nearby Stan’s will be off limits and the power in that region will change hands once again and another type of cold war will come about.
You have to remember that the USA has used all of its own oil and also the majority in the gulf of Mexico, they only number 4% of the worlds population but consume 22% of its energy every year, see a picture emerging, you should.
The world is now in constant conflict for the black stuff
we have to look at another scenario, if oil never existed in this region, there would be no conflict, if you to Mr Mogabi’s government for instance, there is much conflict in this region but no oil, if it was human rights they are intrested in for Afganistan then why no action in Africa, not even the other African countries are intrested nor act accordingly.
Sanctions on the ofending countries are unconstructive to the whole, the people are the ones who suffer, try asking the Iranians and the Iraqis once war began who suffered.
Historically indigenous people fare badly at the hands of “civilisation”. We in the developed world conveniently forget the genocide that we have committed in the past in the Americas and in other lands.
Robert
I agree although don’t forget we also need to support the indigenous people who defend the rainforests, they have worked hard in Peru to keep the loggers and the oil companies off of their land and many of them have been killed by Alan Garcia’s government for doing so.
They are the defenders of our planet….have a look here http://www.luchaindigena.com/
[...] See the original post: Putting the planet on course to avoid climate change [...]
If the pollutor does not pay for pollution then everyone, inlcuding the non pollutors pay, and the non pollutors cannot afford t pay (that’s why they are non pollutors!)