Climate Change Thread

[Husar]

If you had to stop all pollution right now, the only solution would be for governments to take over corporations, cars and so on and stop using all of it. If you just want to decrease pollution, the government could just release laws that regulate pollution more and threaten to take over corporations if they don't stick to the limits.

I don't see the need for a planned economy though. Instead one could release CO2 shares that are valid for only one year. Calculate the amount of CO2 that we can relatively safely release and that will be the total amount of shares going around. Then all countries and corporations in the world can buy them to be allowed to release the amount of CO2 that is given on the shares they own. Private cars may have to be included in that. And of course it would have to be possible to stop people from using their share and then selling it. One way would be to have a card reader in every CO2-producing device and then you'd have a card(or several) that is loaded with CO2 shares, which has to be entered to use the device. The device would then reduce your CO2 shares during use according to its output specifications. This would create a market with a strict upper output limit provided the limit is enforced everywhere (obviously people would try to hack it, so controls are necessary). There'd be an incentive to reduce the personal output or the output of the corporation to save money for shares up to the point where the shares become almost worthless because noone needs them anymore.

Similar systems are in use in the EU I think, but they don't seem very effective and there does not seem to be any upper limit AFAIK. Neither does it include private use or cover the entire planet.

[Pannonian]

If you had to stop all pollution right now, the only solution would be for governments to take over corporations, cars and so on and stop using all of it. If you just want to decrease pollution, the government could just release laws that regulate pollution more and threaten to take over corporations if they don't stick to the limits.

I don't see the need for a planned economy though. Instead one could release CO2 shares that are valid for only one year. Calculate the amount of CO2 that we can relatively safely release and that will be the total amount of shares going around. Then all countries and corporations in the world can buy them to be allowed to release the amount of CO2 that is given on the shares they own. Private cars may have to be included in that. And of course it would have to be possible to stop people from using their share and then selling it. One way would be to have a card reader in every CO2-producing device and then you'd have a card(or several) that is loaded with CO2 shares, which has to be entered to use the device. The device would then reduce your CO2 shares during use according to its output specifications. This would create a market with a strict upper output limit provided the limit is enforced everywhere (obviously people would try to hack it, so controls are necessary). There'd be an incentive to reduce the personal output or the output of the corporation to save money for shares up to the point where the shares become almost worthless because noone needs them anymore.

Similar systems are in use in the EU I think, but they don't seem very effective and there does not seem to be any upper limit AFAIK. Neither does it include private use or cover the entire planet.

It will, in the end, go back to planning. If one is averse to planning, one can used government regulated capitalism that will ultimately amount to the same thing. Big tax breaks for pioneers to develop eco-friendly services. Then make these services available and attractive via tax breaks and thus cheaper prices. Then tax the hell out of those who don't switch to the new eco-friendly services.

[Husar]

It will, in the end, go back to planning. If one is averse to planning, one can used government regulated capitalism that will ultimately amount to the same thing. Big tax breaks for pioneers to develop eco-friendly services. Then make these services available and attractive via tax breaks and thus cheaper prices. Then tax the hell out of those who don't switch to the new eco-friendly services.

When you say planned economy, I think of the kind where the government decides to produce a million green shoes next year and so on, not the kind where someone plans what to do beyond instant self-richification. The first usually leads to even more waste of resources, the second should probably be applauded.

[Pannonian]

When you say planned economy, I think of the kind where the government decides to produce a million green shoes next year and so on, not the kind where someone plans what to do beyond instant self-richification. The first usually leads to even more waste of resources, the second should probably be applauded.

I think of planned economy as the government deciding what to do with its human resources, a la the two world wars (particularly the second one). In particular its management of agriculture, which was based on a study of what an individual needs for sustenance, regearing the land to farm, and its effectiveness to the extent that, uniquely among Europe's warring countries, there were zero deaths in Britain from starvation over the course of the war. Much of that was due to continuing imports thanks to the merchant navies of the UK and allies, but agriculture was also made punishingly efficient by planning. Before anyone points out rationing, that's another aspect of a planned economy as well, but it was also one made possible by the planned agricultural economy (which drastically cut back on meat production, turning the land over instead to producing plant crops, which produced consumable calories far more efficiently).

[Montmorency]

And of course it would have to be possible to stop people from using their share and then selling it.

Why? We could give cap and trade another serious go, and it is in fact the closest thing available to a decentralized capitalist instrument. Even some libertarians recognize that this is the "free market" solution that they need, even if it's not the one they think they deserve right now.

Of course, then we get firms speculating off of derivatives of carbon shares, but that's a separate issue.

[Husar]

Why? We could give cap and trade another serious go, and it is in fact the closest thing available to a decentralized capitalist instrument. Even some libertarians recognize that this is the "free market" solution that they need, even if it's not the one they think they deserve right now.

Of course, then we get firms speculating off of derivatives of carbon shares, but that's a separate issue.

I meant that, when you sell, say, papers for the use of a billion tons of CO2 because that is the most that we can use without ruining the climate, and then someone buys a thousand, uses a thousand tons of CO2 in half a year and sells his paper to someone else, who then uses a thousand tons as well, and there are no checks or controls, then we may end up using two billion tons a year because the same papers are reused. Which is obviously not the idea I had in mind. The idea was just to create a market and artificially limit the "resource" 'CO2 output' so that people can't use it willy nilly and think about how much of it they want to use/can afford. The invisible hand of the market will then make sure putting CO2 into the air has the right price. The limit would obviously be based on the natural law of how much CO2 output nature can handle, so if companies plant lots of trees, they can buy more CO2 output in the future. You could also tax the living whatever out of fossil fuels, but that would be evil government interference and still not necessarily limit use to a level the planet can handle.

[Gilrandir]

The idea was just to create a market and artificially limit the "resource" 'CO2 output' so that people can't use it willy nilly and think about how much of it they want to use/can afford.

You could also tax the living whatever out of fossil fuels, but that would be evil government interference and still not necessarily limit use to a level the planet can handle.

Government(s) interfered enough forbidding incandescents and depriving consumers of choice. What about freedom of choice?