While there are probably other choices that should have been offered for moving towards sustainability, putting a price on carbon (and other environmental) emissions would both reduce the use of coal (or lead to carbon capture) and promote renewable energy, while at the same time encourage both more efficient use of energy and energy conservation -- while also reducing the consumption of products with large amounts of embedded energy.
At the same time, the subsidies given to energy and materials extraction should be eliminated, as these result in over-consumption.
Personally, I would start with what was done in Sweden -- educate all households on the Natural Step -- and then follow it up with the foundations of environmental economics and environmental valuation.
In Wisconsin, a Governor's task force recommended that all college students in environmental or conservation fields be required to take a course in environmental economics, and I support that recommendation.
John
As we near carrying capacity for the planet as a whole, we must find resolutions for the WHOLE. Individuals must take responsibility for their actions, in effect, live by the Golden Rule.
Wealth acquisition and consumption is slowly choking finite resorces. Societies must make changes to curb the wanton destruction wrought upon Earths "holdings" if we are to continue existence.
Many policy changes will have to be instituted and adhered to if we offset or curb the damage done already and in the future.
Personally, I am ashamed of the way the U.S. has conducted itself.
When the problem staring us in the face is Global Warming we need to tax the bejeezus out of fuels that produce carbon dioxide, especially fossil fuels but no less biofuels because we may already have enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to melt the icecaps ands every last glacier. We're way too unlikely to avoid drowning Florida, Bangladesh, the Netherlands and everything else within 100 meters of sea level.
Submitted by aharlib on August 28, 2008 - 11:15am.
I totally agree with rhubert and reiterate what he said which can't be emphasized enough!
This is a meaningless question. These problems are complex and interdependent. There is not a single answer that will fix everything, and the new president must approach these problems with a multidisciplinary, phased and nuanced approach. Part of our problem is thinking about issues such as these as single and separated, which contributes to our ongoing ineffectiveness in coming up with a strategy that will produce progress on all fronts.
Submitted by Elna Otter on August 28, 2008 - 10:47am.
We need to put a carbon tax in place so as to let industry know we are serious about global warming. A carbon tax will push industry into putting research and development money into clean energy and also encourage conservation.
Submitted by sbelair on August 28, 2008 - 10:36am.
I am surprised so few people have voted to put a moratorium on new coal fired power plants. All the issues are important but if there was a moratorium on this very polluting way to produce electricity, we would be forced to develope new ways to produce energy. Right now, the energy industry has no real incentive to do so as long as they can continue to rely on old, very polluting technology.
This is a meaningless question. These problems are complex and interdependent. There is not a single answer that will fix everything, and the new president must approach these problems with a multidisciplinary, phased and nuanced approach. Part of our problem is thinking about issues such as these as single and separated, which contributes to our ongoing ineffectiveness in coming up with a strategy that will produce progress on all fronts.
A Carbon Tax would be the most productive way to create the sustainable planet we seek.
By charging a user fee on our atmosphere (and the depletion of other natural resources) everyone will have the incentive to find new ways to conserve. By putting the true cost of pollution into the price of our goods and services people will naturally seek ways to conserve and pollute less. In this way the price system will educate and motivate everyone without a multi-billion dollar publicity campaign.
By establishing Earth User Fees and providing a Citizen’s Earth Dividend rebate to all, people will be able to use the rebate money to purchase the existing and to be developed resource conserving technology.
By shifting taxes off work and capital investment and onto natural resource depletion labor and business will have the economic climate to produce clean, renewable energy and resource conserving technologies.
I suggest that for those of us who want to save our planet and make it ecologically sustainable we should devote 50 to 80 percent of our time and effort working for the Environmental or Green Tax Shift. See: http://www.progress.org/banneker/shift.html
Tax Waste, Not Work to create a Sustainable Planet
John Francis Parsons
I think this second bracket with my name was a mistake. But I would add that putting a price on Carbon emissions could provide funds for an aggressive energy portfolio and even help finance a moratorium on coal fired generation.
John Francis Parsons
Unfortunately an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes more than an increase in mean world temperature: it produces a rate of increase in mean world tempeature. So if we stop polluting to-morrow, temperature will go on increasing till all that extra carbon has been absorbed by Earth's systems (the Gaia process). Or buried by the polluters. So those oil companies, or governments at election time, who reassure their public that they can pump oil up from the Arctic or a new discovery off the coast of Brazil, are in fact more dangerous for our future than a dozen bin Ladens.
Surely the carbon tax should be applied world wide as from yesterday: after all the price of oil can sustain it. And this if well administered will support many other measures towards more efficient use of fuel, renewable energy, and Carbon burial.
An economist friend estimated recently that if at the beginning of the Bush government, USA had invested 20% of its military budget in these measures, it could to-day be independent of the Middle East for energy.
Submitted by sacerfacer on August 21, 2008 - 10:34pm.
oh great profanity ive just accidentally deleted my well considered response and too tired to start again, i just hope the next president knows the difference between the red button and the green button,and unlike myself dosent press the wrong button at the wrong time!!! -dougie
Submitted by peter read on August 21, 2008 - 2:45pm.
None of the above really, though agricultural investment comes nearest to the mark
The most urgent sustainability issue is the instability of Greenland's Ice cover (and likely West Antartic Ice Sheet, though I have not been checking on that one) as analysed by Jim Hansen .
That cannot be done by emissions reductions: it is necessary to develop a worldwide programme of CARBON REMOVALS by reforming agriculture and forestry into the use of carbon conserving best practice (with biochar playing a big role and sustainably managed bioenergy acting as a channel for energy sector funding).
Visit Climatic Change 87/3-4 "Biosphere carbon stock management: addressing the threat of abrupt climate change in the next few decades: an editorial essay" Peter Read 305-320
Also, for a more recent comment on the metric for climatic danger
http://ecf.pik-potsdam.de/past-events/ipcc-conference-1/documents-1/
Peter-Read-Berlin%20IPCC%20statement.pdf/view
Comments
While there are probably
While there are probably other choices that should have been offered for moving towards sustainability, putting a price on carbon (and other environmental) emissions would both reduce the use of coal (or lead to carbon capture) and promote renewable energy, while at the same time encourage both more efficient use of energy and energy conservation -- while also reducing the consumption of products with large amounts of embedded energy. At the same time, the subsidies given to energy and materials extraction should be eliminated, as these result in over-consumption. Personally, I would start with what was done in Sweden -- educate all households on the Natural Step -- and then follow it up with the foundations of environmental economics and environmental valuation. In Wisconsin, a Governor's task force recommended that all college students in environmental or conservation fields be required to take a course in environmental economics, and I support that recommendation. JohnAs we near carrying capacity
As we near carrying capacity for the planet as a whole, we must find resolutions for the WHOLE. Individuals must take responsibility for their actions, in effect, live by the Golden Rule. Wealth acquisition and consumption is slowly choking finite resorces. Societies must make changes to curb the wanton destruction wrought upon Earths "holdings" if we are to continue existence. Many policy changes will have to be instituted and adhered to if we offset or curb the damage done already and in the future. Personally, I am ashamed of the way the U.S. has conducted itself.When the problem staring us
When the problem staring us in the face is Global Warming we need to tax the bejeezus out of fuels that produce carbon dioxide, especially fossil fuels but no less biofuels because we may already have enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to melt the icecaps ands every last glacier. We're way too unlikely to avoid drowning Florida, Bangladesh, the Netherlands and everything else within 100 meters of sea level.I totally agree with rhubert
I totally agree with rhubert and reiterate what he said which can't be emphasized enough! This is a meaningless question. These problems are complex and interdependent. There is not a single answer that will fix everything, and the new president must approach these problems with a multidisciplinary, phased and nuanced approach. Part of our problem is thinking about issues such as these as single and separated, which contributes to our ongoing ineffectiveness in coming up with a strategy that will produce progress on all fronts.We need to put a carbon tax
We need to put a carbon tax in place so as to let industry know we are serious about global warming. A carbon tax will push industry into putting research and development money into clean energy and also encourage conservation.I am surprised so few people
I am surprised so few people have voted to put a moratorium on new coal fired power plants. All the issues are important but if there was a moratorium on this very polluting way to produce electricity, we would be forced to develope new ways to produce energy. Right now, the energy industry has no real incentive to do so as long as they can continue to rely on old, very polluting technology.This is a meaningless
This is a meaningless question. These problems are complex and interdependent. There is not a single answer that will fix everything, and the new president must approach these problems with a multidisciplinary, phased and nuanced approach. Part of our problem is thinking about issues such as these as single and separated, which contributes to our ongoing ineffectiveness in coming up with a strategy that will produce progress on all fronts.A Carbon Tax would be the
A Carbon Tax would be the most productive way to create the sustainable planet we seek. By charging a user fee on our atmosphere (and the depletion of other natural resources) everyone will have the incentive to find new ways to conserve. By putting the true cost of pollution into the price of our goods and services people will naturally seek ways to conserve and pollute less. In this way the price system will educate and motivate everyone without a multi-billion dollar publicity campaign. By establishing Earth User Fees and providing a Citizen’s Earth Dividend rebate to all, people will be able to use the rebate money to purchase the existing and to be developed resource conserving technology. By shifting taxes off work and capital investment and onto natural resource depletion labor and business will have the economic climate to produce clean, renewable energy and resource conserving technologies. I suggest that for those of us who want to save our planet and make it ecologically sustainable we should devote 50 to 80 percent of our time and effort working for the Environmental or Green Tax Shift. See: http://www.progress.org/banneker/shift.html Tax Waste, Not Work to create a Sustainable PlanetN.R.Chilukuri The basic
N.R.Chilukuri The basic fact about melting ice is the loss of Forest cover all over the world. Grow more trees and they will lookafter Global Warming.John Francis Parsons I
John Francis Parsons I think this second bracket with my name was a mistake. But I would add that putting a price on Carbon emissions could provide funds for an aggressive energy portfolio and even help finance a moratorium on coal fired generation.John Francis
John Francis Parsons Unfortunately an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes more than an increase in mean world temperature: it produces a rate of increase in mean world tempeature. So if we stop polluting to-morrow, temperature will go on increasing till all that extra carbon has been absorbed by Earth's systems (the Gaia process). Or buried by the polluters. So those oil companies, or governments at election time, who reassure their public that they can pump oil up from the Arctic or a new discovery off the coast of Brazil, are in fact more dangerous for our future than a dozen bin Ladens. Surely the carbon tax should be applied world wide as from yesterday: after all the price of oil can sustain it. And this if well administered will support many other measures towards more efficient use of fuel, renewable energy, and Carbon burial. An economist friend estimated recently that if at the beginning of the Bush government, USA had invested 20% of its military budget in these measures, it could to-day be independent of the Middle East for energy.oh great profanity ive just
oh great profanity ive just accidentally deleted my well considered response and too tired to start again, i just hope the next president knows the difference between the red button and the green button,and unlike myself dosent press the wrong button at the wrong time!!! -dougieNone of the above really,
None of the above really, though agricultural investment comes nearest to the mark The most urgent sustainability issue is the instability of Greenland's Ice cover (and likely West Antartic Ice Sheet, though I have not been checking on that one) as analysed by Jim Hansen . That cannot be done by emissions reductions: it is necessary to develop a worldwide programme of CARBON REMOVALS by reforming agriculture and forestry into the use of carbon conserving best practice (with biochar playing a big role and sustainably managed bioenergy acting as a channel for energy sector funding). Visit Climatic Change 87/3-4 "Biosphere carbon stock management: addressing the threat of abrupt climate change in the next few decades: an editorial essay" Peter Read 305-320 Also, for a more recent comment on the metric for climatic danger http://ecf.pik-potsdam.de/past-events/ipcc-conference-1/documents-1/ Peter-Read-Berlin%20IPCC%20statement.pdf/view