´óÏó´«Ã½

HOT AIR

In 'free' libertarian (anarchistic) democracies, it's easier to tax expenditure than it is to tax income. So much for hot air.

A tax on carbon is the only credible way in a market economy to induce significant reductions in the consumption of carbon based fuels and make green alternatives more attractive. It is also a more progressive taxation than many of our covert and overt taxes (e,g. Council tax)since the rich and wealthy have a much higher per capita consumption. Lets not stop at motor vehicles but bring in the domestic energy industry. For example not only re-instate the full VAT on energy but also why tolerate the current tariff structure of high charge band followed by the lower band which means the unit cost reduces the more you use - crazy, yes! Of course other taxation and benefits will need changing to minimise any impact on low income citizens.

Any move to increase taxation on fuel is going to be politically inhibited by the absolutely certain increase in oil prices post-recession.

Having growth and lower CO2 is not mutually exclusive. We could have a 5% year on year cut on CO2 if we really wanted it and still have reasonable growth.
I am sure if the government went to the general population with a 5% CO2 tax for a maximum 10 year period only, that went directly to insulating old people homes, building green power sources etc, they would agree to it. rowth.
Unfortunately no one would believe them, there is no logic at present, everything just ends in the treasury .The present government is well versed in spin, but not in getting trust.

Some relevant quotes about economists and economics...

If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 - 2006)

An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today.
Laurence J. Peter (1919 - 1988)

Socialism failed because it couldn't tell the economic truth; capitalism will fail because it can't tell the ecological truth.
Lester Brown, Fortune Brainstorm Conference, 2006

In all recorded history there has not been one economist who has had to worry about where their next meal would come from.
Peter Drucker (1909 - 2005)

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.
Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988)

#2 watriler wrote:

"A tax on carbon is the only credible way..."

I do not really believe in your proposition, and here are several reasons why Carbon taxes do not work:-

- They are generally fiddled to allow the big polluters to continue to pollute - see the licence to pollute carbon credits racket.

- They depress the economy and are therefore generally counterbalanced with reductions in costs in other areas which generally work out as even more polluting - (see light bulbs where the new bulbs contain mercury for which there is a huge disposal problem.)

- The science behind Carbon Dioxide being causal rather than a symptom is weak, and may well be wrong.

- Technological and scientific errors generally predominate e.g. biofuels as as example of a more damaging technology replacing a damaging technology in the name of carbon reduction - the problem being that the rain forest is cleared to grow the biofuels as well as the outrageous fiddle where by a whole ship load of oil is designated a biofuel if a few gallons of a biofuel is added.

My view is that we should plan for the results of climate change, not battle fruitlessly against the tide, in a Canute like way. The World should prepare for the necessary movement of people from uninhabitable areas and seek to benefit everyone through this necessary migration and not wait till disaster strikes in the hope that millions die before we do anything. (The Thames Barrier was a far less expensive project than waiting until London flooded.)

A carbon tax would be regressive tax in the United States, and although it would be a useful tool to lower petrol consumption; most Americans would rightfully see the justification as a fig leaf to fill tax coffers. If you really want to cut carbon emissions, heavily tax carbon hogs; the wealthy who fly on private jets, use limosines, yachts, and have huge estates. Elites won't do that because it would crimp the lifestyle of them and their friends and they wouldn't want to do that. Curbing Carbon emissions is not THAT important. Thats for the little people.
I am not against a carbon tax in principle as one of many tools to cut down on pollution, but once again Americans are being lectured to by sanctimonious Europeans and hypocrites as to how to manage our economy.

Stephanie.. you don't understand this do you. Fact is that American industry and American start-ups and spin outs are already making huge progress in developing the technologies they need to move to a low carbon economy. They don't need to increase taxes because their entrepreneurs, their scientists and engineers and their banks, venture capitalists and angel investors will provide the solutions they need. Their aim is simply to make sure their country dominates the next energy era.

Here on the other hand tax is being used as a proxy for investment. Neither the pathetic UK Govt nor the equally pathetic private sector is investing anything like enough in clean energy technology to make a real difference.

Carbon Tax, Carbon Credits, just another way for the "incrowd" to gain fat wages and cosy jobs.
Politicians have jumped on the band waggon and the public are probably carbon sick. Useless windfarms at enormous cost to the economy and a method that uses more energy building and maintaining than it will ever produce. BUT, someone has done allright out of it and the Politicians feel good ! again, at our expense.
We have spent the Prescot years building houses on factory sites and away from the workplace, and factories on new land away from the workforce. Result, millions more miles ! We send kids form the North to the South for University and kids from the South to the North ??? What a useless waste of time and resource. That is true of every bit of this Governments fragmented policy. Left hand spends what the right hand saves but the politicians love the limelight and the Non Exec Positions on the favoured company boards.

A total sham and an even bigger shambles.

For those who missed the financial crisis, you should reflect on the ability of the powerful to divert public revenue into their own pockets for misdeeds and misdealings. Coal and Oil are only second to banking in political influence so people shouldn't get their hopes up too high. As governments now declare that they can tax the air we go down another one of those governmental tax streams where is becomes not in the interest of the governments to solve the problem because that reduces a revenue stream. I hope no one still believes that governments are altrustic. The targets for emission reductions are pitiful and will be reached with improved technology alone. Governments could try enforcing existing regulations concerning air quality and reach the same ends but that would place the costs on the polluters and the industries would like the people to share in the burden.

"If emissions fall as a result of plunging output, then they will go right back up again, if and when the global economy recovers."

Thank-you for adding that little word. "If" the global economy recovers. Too many commentators seem to take it as red that the economy will bounce back sooner or later without acknowledging things could be far more broken than most would care to admit.

There is another advantage of carbon taxes - in the UK we are now a net energy importer, importing oil, gas and more than half our coal. Taxing carbon would help our growing trade deficit.

Well if the politicians can't do it then natural feedback effects will - a few feet of sea level will sadly not only destroy many innocent peoples lives but also farewell Florida, New York, London, Shanghai and so on. Net result fewer people and less CO2.

Of course we will only have our selfish selves to blame.

"the entire global effort to combat global warming has had to be designed around a cap-and-trade approach to cutting emissions - not some form of global carbon tax."

I think you should point out that many hold the view that the linkage between emissions and global warming is unproven, and that attempts to quantify the effect, if there is one, are highly speculative. That instead so many represent these speculations as proven science is due to(1) that global warming hyperbole is just being used as a pretext to the goal of reversing the path of increasing human consumption and (2) that some see a golden opportunity to make money out of providing "services" to the anti-emissions industry.

I'm afraid that by being subsumed in the culture that treats the speculation as fact, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is failing to pursue truth, and because of this will increasingly become irrelevant to anyone with an independently functioning brain.

Oh dear Stephanomics misses the point of what America has done and is still doing.

So you say America is averse to raise Carbon taxes like these are the holy grail - the answer to climate change.

So let's take a good look at the UK who has, according to your own chart, high carbon taxes ! Does the UK use fossil fuels ? Does the UK have a plan for stopping to use fossil fuels ? In fact has the UK created any Bio fuel plants ? Ah yes, I think there is one or two.

Let's have a look at America then, hmmm last time I looked they had close to 1000 bio fuel plants. They produce bio fuel - ethanol - using genetically modified corn. The aim is to become 50% self sufficient by 2020. They are also progressing the use of algae to produce even more bio fuel.

The lesson ?

Carbon taxes does not equate to carbon efficiency.

Action is far better than taxing/fining the populous.

The UK may raise lots of revenue in the name of carbon reduction - however in reality it has actually done practically NOTHING active or in planning to reduce emmissions.

Have a good look at what Brazil, Germany and America has done - taxes are quite frankly irrelevant - quite like the point of this article.

Strange how cynical, opportunistic politicians always use the word "tax" when they're attempting to change people's habits over CO2 emissions, never the word "incentive".

the Yanks didnt agree to the Kyoto agreement and much as they spout no protectionism, the Yanks may say one thing and mean another, also the graph is misleading as it shows from the begining of the year our petrol is much more expensive now due to recent tax increases

I have long maintained that "economic instruments" (of which a carbon tax would be one) are the best, if not the only way, to modify behaviour. But no-one should assume that a carbon tax will lead to a reduction in consumption: after all, petrol taxes in europe are exorbitant and yet people are still driving around like crazy.

nor is it inevitable that a carbon tax on inefficient, old technologies will lead to a rush to invest in cleaner technology. Again, there is little evidence of such a rush in the car industry. The simple fact is that the incumbent owners of the old technology are as likely to invest in ways to maintain that technology (in the face of the tax) as they are to invest in changing it.

This being so the tax would, like any other excise duty, merely be incorporated into current prices and inflation without resulting in any effective reduction in emmissions. A good way to raise revenue (as this blog implies) but not to save the planet.

The plain fact is that unless we want to save the planet by perpetuating the current recession we have got to find ways to maintain our standard of living (and quality of life) with a lower carbon footprint. This will require change: change will require innovation: and Governments do not innovate. Businesses innovate - and the necessary investment is more likely to be forthcoming if those businesses are offered incentives rather than subjected to higher costs.

Hello;

I have one simple question: What is the point in taking Carbon taxation anyway?

Is that for putting aside extra money for governments? And if yes, what will they do, will they suddenly become powerful enough to finance futuristic power plants and destroy the existing ones? Very, very unlikely; even without considering the effect of personal corruption in those who held such a power; probably the nations will end up building a warship or two (and I suppose UK is now building two).

Perhaps we're imagining that some of the chimneys will start give off less smoke or will completely silenced because they'll learn in time that the more smoke they produce, poorer and poorer they will get. Is that it?


In my humble opinion, considering the chart in this article industrial countries like UK, Germany, Netherlands and Turkiye must be bearing on excessive petroleum taxation *not* because of looking for ways to allocate more funds for cutey greener projects, but they are just craving for keeping themselves "up and up" all the time right on the water surface, as a first-priority mandate to themselves. Therefore, it wouldn't be unrealistic to suggest that these countries couldn't bother themselves with another topic of a lesser-degree, such as those Earth-saving efforts, but UNLESS, of course, they are efficiently persuaded such efforts would do the same business for them, which is lifting them above the ground.

When the increased temperatures of the oceans inevitably start causing unavoidable floods, and when these floods become exhaustively more frequent, the governments of suffering nations will have to assist relief efforts by giving away free petroleum and giving up a whole year's taxation for the people on disaster-hit areas. Likewise, again for the same reasons, the nations who will have to face severe drought should be compensating their pain with similar measures, thus, eventually rendering the petroleum taxation ineffective.

Yes I have a suggestion based on the assumption that we've turned our focus into sustainable energy by the help of improvements in solar, EM and energy containment technology: stop using CARS.

Let me repeat it so you second it: stop using CARS.

Use of petroleum should be declared as off-the-limits in public transportation before they are causing much greater disturbances on Earth both political and climate-wise, by use of whatever means I am not going to get into; at least, not here.

Sure, one must be feeling urged to call this as "day dreaming" and the time they heard they will make a call back to their whatsoever reality their de Facto situations are already existing. Because my solution will have such thorns around it, only to make it sure they "hurt" a lot, I will have to remind myself and all those who might follow this idea that, " they surely will ... but not us, not all of us! "


best regards;

p.s. I am 34 years old Turkish citizen who's been a web developer for 16 years despite I had studied a top class food engineering in METU.

You seem to have swallowed the global warming ( sorry, "climate change" - it covers every scenario) hysteria completely, using the apparent surety that Man causes the climate to change, as a starting point for the rest of your argument.

Many people utterly dispute MMGW - climate has always changed;the land has always changed ( we were even linked to the Continent, in geological terms, very recently - one could walk to France). The sun effects climate change.

Therefore,carbon trading is pointless and will achieve nothing apart from ensuring higher taxes and more expensive living - remember, we are already paying "green" taxes everyday - witness the increasing energy costs reflecting a futile attempt to provide electricity by windpower. ( Only the rich will be able to afford future electricity unless nuclear power is multiplied hugely.)

As an economics editor, I would have thought you would look at the wider issues, from a more balanced perspective - clearly you have to "toe the line" at the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Hi Stephanie,
I just want to ask ... have you read Aussie economist Steve Keen? E.g. see the following links:

What's your opinion? Surely what he's saying is pretty huge?

Location: secret political 'think-thank' in the 90s (probably in NY USA)

Personnel: Crooked PR people, crooked scientists and 'politicians'

Agenda: The next big thing to con the public for more money if the Internet doesn't do it.

PRMan to scientists: "Look, what are we really, really no good at?, those Chinese and Arabs etc are getting out of hand with their statism, they'r emaking it work, it risks getting popular!"

Scientists: "Managing/predicting the weather.

PRMan "Why's that so hard?"

Scientists: "Because it's a Dynamical System, i.e non-linear. We can only make sense of it in terms of Strange Attractors, which means probabilities. It's just too complex, there are too many variables interacting. - it's a maths thing."

PRMan: "Great, we'll tell everyone they're to blame for climate change - nobody will be able to disprove it, and we'll be able to tax everyone for energy usage - get the marketing folk to hype big TVs mobile phones, laptops, etc!, they'll hate the Chinese etc for killing the planet too"

Rogue Scientist: "But it's just the sun, it does that sometimes".

PRMan - "How did he get in here? Sack that idiot! Better still, nut him off".

INTERNICINE ATTENTION GENERATION

paulval (#19) "As an economics editor, I would have thought you would look at the wider issues"

Like Nigel Lawson (Thatcher's Energy Minister)

#20

Loafalot

Steve Keen is bang on. He's got the right tools and the right approach, in my humble opinion. Like other economic flavours that are shifting to the mainstream, such as behavioural economics, his particular flavour also emphasises EVIDENCE. The economics we have at the moment is little more than folklore.

Pity it won't save the Liberal Demcoracies from .

The environment can only be saved by reducing world human populations. It is simply the ever increasing human populations, using ever increasing energy, food resources, and creating ever increasing pollution, that have the planet in trouble, and only by reducing those populations, can the planet be saved.

The increasing world population more than offsets everything we are currently doing to improve the environment, and it will continue to do so, until either we stop growing human populations, or the planet dies, whichever comes first.

#24 JJ

But JJ...America's Perfect Storm will only mean that they will recede as a world economic power. What's wrong with that?

Isn't just equilibrium being enacted?

The USA is pretty arrogant anyhow...is this not just the 'Dawning of the Age of Aquarious' (aka the Great Leveller). What comes around goes around.

Chinese dominance of the globe is just accedeing power to the genetically dominant society (minus the Jews of course...therefore won't they just migrate to 'over there'?)

#17 Chriss;

Business doesn't innovate...well, unless you consider the scheme the banks came up with to provide unsecured loans for the sake of short-term profit...now that was innovative.
Individuals innovate, businesses purchase political protection for markets and seek government subsidies...very much like the entitlement welfare mentality. This is big business and not your average shop keeper.

This entire article is pure drivel.

Why not look at some volcanoes and ask yourself whether or not a serious eruption might not emit a good quantity of greenhouse gases. Then ask yourself whether or not the planet has ever experienced massive volcanic activity.

Why not tax countries that have volcanoes? Why not declare war on countries with volcanoes - maybe volcanoes are a slow burn communist plot designed to undermine our way of life.

As for the Sun...Well. Ancient Egyptians, the Mayans et al all had a thing for the Sun. Just goes to show how ignorant and stupid these primitives were - never once realising that the Sun was just a giant hallucination. What kind of primitive mind could think that the Sun could influence temperature. Which reminds me, all those communist chemists flogging snake oil disguised as sun cream protection.

Thank God for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ educating the people to understand the real truth.

I blame the Chinese - oops silly me, we are not supposed to reach that conclusion for a few years yet. Need more softening up first.

#20 loafalot. What has Steve Keen got to do with climate change? Who cares about Steve Keen? Just some annoying Australian who speaks the truth. Rest assured he will be ignored.

We are far to enlightened to have any interest in truth. Personally I think the world is probably flat and that Ben Bernanke is definitely going to save the world.

It's a strange world, Stephanie.

I'm a working scientist (not in climatology), and have spent a considerable part of my life appreciating the environment by getting outside and walking on it for long periods.

But I count myself as a "climate-sceptic", which probably would be a deeply unfashionable view amongst the "Greens" you spoke to.

Yet I too see a silver lining to this cloud. Hard times often concentrate the mind on efficiency, and the desirability of energy efficiency is a view I probably share with these greens.

But there already a lot of clever engineers and scientists who already do want to increase energy efficiency and find other sources before the carbon runs out.

I believe that the anti-carbon and green-tax supporters will eventually realise that their hopes and plans simply won't add up, especially when when the bulk of the population is confronted by the reality of the changes that some people propose.

This will then lead to an accelerated return to the use of nuclear power, which I consider to be the best option for our energy needs as fossil fuels diminish and become too expensive.
So go ahead Greenpeace, make my day.

It is indeed, a strange world.

I'm a polar bear!.....helpp!!!

BankSlickerminustheR (#26) It's not just the USA - see the Leitch Review (2006) from HM Treasury. In fact, the differential fertility and TFR problems appear to hold across the Liberal Democracies :-(

Stephanie,

Reflect a moment. The Chinese government has signalled that it is getting serious about climate change. It has also discreetly but firmly drawn attention to the need for the US to reduce its expected deficits if the USA is to remain credit worthy. The Chinese are the big lenders the USA is relying on. Won't recovery from the recession be likely to become very difficult for the USA unless they find some way of raising the price of carbon to the benefit of Federal revenues? Is it really going to be so impossible for the USA to find a way to do what will be very much in their national interest?

IMHO I believe this article is drivel/pointless too ... and I agree with many of the comments above.

Politicians see road pricing as a way of taxing travel, and are trying to do it well before oil runs out and things go more electric! They make a huge amount (£30-40bn) each year from different forms of taxes (e.g. mostly petrol tax) and cannot afford for this to be lost, never mind the need to raise lots more now!

More and more people see green taxes as a con, and see them being simply used to justify raising even more tax ... whilst allowing the creation of another way for traders to make money through trading carbon without adding any value at all (they would like to do it for fresh water in the future too if they can - given this is also being predicted to be in short supply in 20 years time).

However IMHO the real issue is i) the fact that man-made CO2 is not actually the big issue with regard to our climate (e.g. given it actually accounts for less than 0.12% of the greenhouse effect, whereas water vapor / clouds account for over 90%* !) and ii) the level of conspiracy that exists now to stifle/stop any proper informed debate* (e.g. this was highlighted to be the case within the ´óÏó´«Ã½ by Peter Sissons recently) ... and iii) in a number of areas it's also deflecting us to look in the wrong areas for potential solutions too (e.g. hydrogen cars ... that create water vapor)! ... it is indeed a strange world.

* take a look at or instance.

Post 33 - I think the answer to the questions you have raised lie in following post ...

No 29 "...that Ben Bernanke is definitely going to save the world."

No, he's not !! Crash Gordon had already booked that job !! :-)

No 31 " I'm a polar bear!.....helpp!!!"

Stop whinging, paint your eyes, arms and tummy black, swim to China and pretend to be a panda !! You'll be well coddled there !! :-)

"Is the economic downturn going to save the planet?"

The short answer is *NO* !! The economic downturn has slowed but not stopped the conspicuous consumption of goods and services. It has *NOT* slowed or stopped the true cause of the problems - the need for instant gratification !!

This is an American disease that had spread across the world and become pandemic. The need for instant answers is reflected in this article and the government and population in general. Electric can openers and gas-powered cork removers are just 2 examples of instant gratification.

Prepared meals, frozen food and microwave ovens are more of the same. But the most damaging is the need for credit to purchase gratification instead of saving for it !! These are the true causes of the economic crisis we now face.

The lack of planning for the future is yet another example of instant gratification. We want it now and we'll do what ever is needed to get it now regardless of costs to the economy or the environment !!

No 25 above wrote of reducing human populations. This is another example of a quick fix Has he looked into the background of the problem with human populations. Firstly, the growing numbers of retirees means that there are more of the population being unproductive. Are you suggesting that they should be executed/euthanised ?? What about the chronic unemployed ?? They use up precious resources without contribution to the economic whole !! Are they, too, going to be executed/euthanised ?? Or should we keep paying them to carry on being drones and a drain on the efforts of the working population ??

Speaking strictly of population and resources, Singapore is a nation of 4 million on a tiny island with absolutely *NO* resources !! They seem to be doing very well.

IMHO, it's all down to the efficient management of population and the use of resources and *NOT* population per se !!

Stephanie, further to my original post (#30), do you, or any of your readers, know if any company offers spread-betting odds on predicted, real-world, quantifiable, verifiable numbers relating to climate change?

By "real-world" I mean predictions that can be evaluated before I die (which is 50 years, max, being optimistic).

My understanding is that there are markets on weather-related events (as they are so important to agriculture), so should insurance/assurance companies not "offer odds" on climatic-events?

I've asked this question elsewhere on science/environment blogs, but not got a reply yet. As an economics writer, perhaps you know more about this than I do (and I think I would be interested in making an investment in this area).

It does not matter if human activity is the prime influence on climate change or not! It does not matter if the climate is changing or not.

What IS important are the following:

a) From an economic standpoint, the environment is affected by most transactions, and these effects are accumulating externalities that need to be addressed. An economic model is flawed as long as there are externalities at all. How can one say that petrol costs X dollars when the value of the dollar depends on the value of oil? Why does the price of oil not involve the value of remaining reserves? Why does honey consumption not involve the benefit of bees to the local ecology?

b) Any excuse to mobilise the population and boost GDP that is NOT WAR is a GOOD CAUSE (at the moment). I'd rather be lied to about the ecology threatening to kill us all than lied to about Islamic terrorism or imaginary Iranian missiles. Thank you very much.

c) We will get electric cars and other new technologies from this, which will open new doors and get us away from the same staid old institutions and geopolitical setup. Time for a change and a breath of FRESH AIR, even if not literally.

More on the Steve Keen front:

#27 Ghostofsichuan

It's all very well having a knee jerk reaction to the word "business" (It's just a noun based on the word busy)but the fact is that things get done by businesses (large or small).

The would-be entrepreneurs going into the Dragon's Den aspire to be businesses bringing their ideas to market. The celebrated Mr Dyson (of dual cyclone vaccuum cleaner fame) may be an individual, but we know about him because he is a successful business.

The question remains how to get busy reducing the greenhouse effect: and taking huge sums of money out of the system through taxes, to pay off our debts, does not look like the best way to start.

WOW !! *THREE* nuclear subs !! The Russians, Chinese and the Iranians must be wetting themselves.......laughing !!

As they say - Laugh not at the lizard when he says that his ancestor was a dinosaur; it's all he's got left to talk about !!

Why can't he be honest, scrap the lot and spend the money on something useful - like high speed trains !!

"The MPs said the trust appeared to believe it had no case to answer and its response was not "coherent"."

Perhaps the answer was not coherent because they are all drunk on power !! They have been arrogant sods all along and, now, it's pointed out by the Parliamentary select committee !!

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is *NOT* supposed to be a commercial operation !! Why did it buy the Lonely Planet ?? If they want to be commercial, then we have the right to withdraw all license fees !!

"The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust defended the Lonely Planet purchase but told the committee it could not respond to all the recommendations because it was conducting its own review of ´óÏó´«Ã½ Worldwide - and there were talks over a possible tie-up with Channel 4."

There is nothing to review !! If they want to tie up with Channel 4 then they *MUST* first give up the license fees !! If they want to be a full time publisher, same thing !! Either go commercial or stop messing about and do what they were chartered to do *PROPERLY AND ECONOMICALLY* !! No more ´óÏó´«Ã½ fat cats, better paid than many bankers !!

Well !! They chopped down all the trees and sucked out all the water from the Murray-Darling basins and now they reap what they have sown. Absolutely nothing to do with "climate change" at all !!

"China and the US each account for about 20% of the world's greenhouse gas pollution from coal, natural gas and oil.

The European Union is responsible for 14%, followed by Russia and India with 5% each."

1.3 billion people in China is responsible for 20% of the pollution. 300 million people in the US is responsible for 20% of the pollution. That makes the average American more than 4x more polluting than the average Chinese.

Britain has 65 million people, by that calculation, Britain should produce less than 1% of the pollution. How much does Britain produce now ?? That answer and what he said/will say will show Ed Milliband for what he is !!

ACTUARIAL JUDGEMENT

thefrogstar (#39) "My understanding is that there are markets on weather-related events (as they are so important to agriculture), so should insurance/assurance companies not "offer odds" on climatic-events?"

Exactly - good point, but this private hedge-fund talk is just actuarial analysis/judgement which in fact has nothing to do with the success of free-market anarchism/libertarianism. Command Economies must use actuarial analysis too, big-time (see GOSPLAN of old or China today). The problem is that in the decadent, (dying demographically) Liberal-Democracies, this core technology, so central to science and rationality, has been relinquished by government, to bankers etc, at the expense of the people, quite literally.

#40 FrankSz No doubt your thoughts will be manna from heaven to the oligarchs.

This is a long term lie. Increasing sacrificies will be required by increasing numbers of people at the alter of this lie. When nothing changes the people will be invited to become angry that their sacrificies have been for nothing. But not to worry an enemy will be quickly identified - most probably China, maybe India or maybe both. We are not racists but we must attack the Chinese for the sake of the planet - What cause could be nobler? We do not do this because we want to, but because we have to!!

The Chinese are of a different order of magnitude to Iran and a few unseen terrorists, hence the lie needs to be of a different order of magnitude.

If you want to see how much the oligarchs "care for the planet" take a trip down to West Africa and have a look around. Then remember that this is done by the same people who have big shiny pristine offices in London and Houston with people who would throw you out of the building and most probably call the police if you so much a lit a cigarettte.

Take a look at the effect of bio fuels on food prices. Take a look at the effect of rising food prices on Mexican campesinos. Then just be amazed at the increasing levels of organised crime, and the effects of this crime on Mexican society.

There is evidence around that at one time the planet was completely covered with ice. The ice went away when volcanoes began erupting. The earth can take care of itself. Whether or not it will require human life for much longer is a mute point. Either way there is nothing that you or I or anyone else can do about it.

You see people agonising over whether they should leave their phone charger plugged in. Meanwhile I have lived in places where they have air conditioning units in the street!

If you really had any interest in the health of the planet would you really spend $trillion on nuclear weapons?

Capitalism is the enemy of nature.

This is the title of Joel Kovel's book.

It makes the point that capitalism is accumulation for accumulation's sake & therefore ecologically destructive.

It is the ultimate example of how under capitalism humanity does not have the freedom to choose a way of living that benefits us and the rest of nature.

Capitalism traps humanity.

By taking collective control of the reproduction process we can have a future worth living.

armagediontimes (#48) "Meanwhile I have lived in places where they have air conditioning units in the street!"

Nice example. For other obvious illustrations of human irrationality in the face of refuting evidence (even amongst the allegedly literate/eucated), see this blog and others ;-)

No 49 "Capitalism is the enemy of nature."

This is such a sweeping statement as to make it nonsense. There are many forms of capitalism and the form that is attacked is the robber-baron capitalism so beloved by Americans and portrayed in the film "Wall Street" by Gordon Gekko !!

"It is the ultimate example of how under capitalism humanity does not have the freedom to choose a way of living that benefits us and the rest of nature."

Under capitalism, you are free to live as you please. In fact, you are free to starve to death, if you don't want to work for a living !! What you are thinking of is Communism where the state feeds you and tells you where and how to live "or else" !!

"By taking collective control of the reproduction process we can have a future worth living."

And just who controls the "reproduction processes" ?? Will they tie your reproductive organ in a knot just to control it ??

I think either you or the author or both are very confused about these states !!

It seems that "labour camp" Shenzhen is the fifth most important financial centre in the world !! Would that there were more such "labour camps" !!

"The report said the "speed and size of the surge" in Asian cities' competitiveness was a "surprise"."

How else did Shenzhen grow from 20 families of fishermen to 30 million people in 30 years ?? The place is thoroughly infested with yuppies of every shape, size, race, colour, creed or religion !! No, that's not strictly true. They have only one religion there - the worship of Great God Money and his temples are everywhere complete with ATMs for the masses to worship with !!

#51

Given the history of the 20th century you can be forgiven for having a distorted view of what socialism/communism is.

It is NOT one-party dictatorship.
This is state-capitalism.

Ishkandar (#52) "Under capitalism, you are free to live as you please. In fact, you are free to starve to death, if you don't want to work for a living !! What you are thinking of is Communism where the state feeds you and tells you where and how to live "or else" !!"

We don't want any of these teachers, doctors, parent etc types telling us all what's what do we? We want to make it all up as we go along and .... Society becomes bottom-heavy and starts to collapse under its own stench.

With all due respect ;-)... maybe it's time for you to grow up and consult empirical reality for a few minutes?

duvinrouge (#53) "Given the history of the 20th century you can be forgiven for having a distorted view of what socialism/communism is.

It is NOT one-party dictatorship.
This is state-capitalism."

Quite correct. Those who peddle or people power (cf. New Labour), are 'Necons' aka the vanguard of the Financial Service Sector and 'liberal-democracy' in wich 'the people' have the 'power' to fund the .

No 53 "This is state-capitalism."

Ah !! You mean like Britain who now owns most of the major banks !! I'm sure the British economy now is a beacon and a shining example for the rest of the world !! *NOT* !!

No 54 "maybe it's time for you to grow up and consult empirical reality for a few minutes?"

Empirical reality tells us that all blathering is worthless with facts and figures and actions. Theories are all very fine but does not feed the stomach. Actions speak louder than words !!

And insults are meaningless without the backing of facts !!

ishkandar (#56) "Ah !! You mean like Britain who now owns most of the major banks !!"

That is an obviously false statement. How much else that you post is false? Even those which the government has invested in have not been nationalised. HMG has been very explicit about this. Furthermore, other banks like HSBC, Barclays etc are internationals and could not be nationalised. New Labouris NEw Laeft, not Old Labour. Has that not unk in yet. They are, by their actions/outcomes, Neocons, i.e Trotskyite anarchists.

#56

The crisis has indeed promoted state-capitalism at the expense of free-market capitalism.
Keynesian (state) intervention is attempting to resolve the crisis.

But all that is happening is one lot of fictitious capital (state debt)is replacing another (falling asset prices, such as those mortgage packages the banks were selling to one another).

The cisis has not been resolved.

It just remains to be seen as to what character it takes next, e.g. stock market crash, bankruptcy, collapse of the dollar (and sterling) and/or inflation.

ishkadar (#57) "And insults are meaningless without the backing of facts !!"

No, you just describe, to yourself, correction, as 'insult'. This allows you to persist with false beliefs.

You appear to conveniently ignore or misrepresnet, like so many others here, basic facts, when these have been repeatedly presented to you elsewhere. Others here feel 'insulted' when they are told that they are wrong, or that they do not know what they are talking about (often the case with people alas, even clever ones). This is, if you think about it, a most odd behaviour. If this happened in schools or in universities etc (alas it does!), how would anyone learn anything? Too many people take what they believe as true. They should know that beliefs are often held which are also false. Some of the statments you post are clearly false. What you have to decide is whether you wish to continue holding on to statements which are false, as being true, or learn.

Don't shoot the messenger - learn to update what you know rather than waste your time arguing to preserve your status quo ;-).

If you want to eliminate your share of CO2 production, stop consuming manufactured goods, stop buying food produced more than a few miles from your home, stop heating your home. With those eliminated, you may as well also stop driving your car.

Best of all, don't buy anything, live on vegetables grown in your garden.

The economy? After all the above, will it matter anymore?

Seriously, if we want to reduce CO2 emissions and have an economy, we have to think hard about how we can continue to do the things in my first paragraph, but do them more efficiently and at a lower carbon cost. We might even be more ambitious and think of how we can soak up some of the CO2!

#51 Ishkandar. Perhaps it is you that is confused.

You write "Under capitalism, you are free to live as you please. In fact, you are free to starve to death, if you don't want to work for a living !!"

How does this fit with the approximately 3,500 new laws that have been passed since 1997. What happens if I want to go to a pub and smoke a cigarette? What happens if I want to stand next to the Cenotaph and read aloud a list of the British soldiers who have died in Iraq/Afghanistan?

What happens if I do not want to subsidise a bunch of multi millionaires/billionaires?

What happens if I am an Afghan who does not want to be bombed?

What happens if I am from West Africa and do not want you to despoil my homeland with your toxic waste?

Where exactly is my freedom to live as I want without doing harm to others and without others doing harm to me?

A number of contributers have claimed that rising populations are not the problem. They my not be THE problem but they are a part of the problem. Surely we accept that with about 2.5 million unemployed and x million in "education" that the country has a bigger population than is strictly necessary to maintain our standard of living. Don't be so stupid as to accuse me of wanting euthanasia. However, to plan our national economy to discourage population growth (tax on 3+ children anyone?) must in the long term take pressure off our towns to increase in size, our countryside to be ever more agriculturally industrialised and our roads to be ever more packed by people seeking somewhere more peaceful. That you don't "believe" in global warming (incidentally belief does not come into it) does not detract from the benefits to us all of reduced population - without economic growth being required.

#61

The point is that under capitalism this isn't even a choice for people.

Although owning your own house (and garden, for some) is promoted to reinforce the ideology of private property, becoming self-sufficient in vegetable production is not going to happen widely.

Now getting some like-minded people together and setting up a communal vegetable plot will at least confront capital and through this experience increase the likelihood of you and your mates becoming anti-capitalists and uniting with other anti-capitalists and make the possibility of an ecologically sound way of living become a reality.

Frazer_Hush (#63) "A number of contributers have claimed that rising populations are not the problem."

European states have below replacement level fertility (some dangerously low, i.e. extinction level low). There is also a negative correlation betwen educability and birth rate. Can you work the rest out?

duvinrouge, ishkandar

The Cartesian duality that can allow us to frame a concept of nature as "the other" is the real enemy of...nature (or more correctly, this planet).

Religions and other ideologies that give mankind pre-eminence over all other life forms, seeing the earth as a larder for us to plunder and other lifeforms to be tolerated at best or wiped out at worst, are also the enemies of the planet.

63 Frazer_Hush

I'm in absolute, total agreement. Containing population growth is essential to human survival. In the long term, our other problems are either dependent on it or minor by comparison.

#66

I've no problem seeing us as part of nature.
Indeed, the analysis of how we live, whether under feudal or capitalistic productive relations, has to be done scientifically, just as we would analyse human evolution within nature.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The internal combustion engine has alot to answer for...

At one end of the 'system' are the manufacturers clamouring for aid....

At the other end are the exhaust gases

At least double per mile travelled in the US than UK due to low mpg rates

There are pollution taxes in the US

the building I lived in had a permit to produce no more than x tons of NOX (this would probably relate to tons of CO2)

If we had a surplus we could sell credits. If we had a shortfall we could buy others credits or pay a fine

There was a market

The cost of the taxes was not enough to make us become more efficient users of oil and gas. Market prices for these and failing old plant and equipment were the trigger.

@70 & 71 mrsbloggs raises some important points:

"the internal combustion engine has a lot to answer for". I accept that its use produces CO2. But, what about agriculture, large scale power generation, heating buildings, manufacturing. The 'infernal' combustion engine happens to be the most visible and therefore the easiest target politically. That doesn't make it the biggest criminal. In fact, in terms of efficiency, it has made great gains over the years.

"the cost of taxes was not enough to make us more efficient.... old failing plant were the trigger". Instead of taxing consumption, why not provide some monetary stimulation (or financial easing since it was good for banks) to efficiency, specifically to the individuals and organisations trying to improve 'thermal' efficency (I'm using the term a little loosely). Insulate and improve our building stock, investigate new materials and devices, alternative heating and ventilation, local production..... the list is a long one. We might even start some new industries that would be good both for the economy and the environment.