Coming Clean - New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme Explained from Lindsay Horner on Vimeo.
By the way, isn't this beautifully filmed?
Pages
▼
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Emissions Trading Mess
Here's an interesting and informative video on the big mess of emissions trading. It's particular to New Zealand, but much of it applies anywhere. It's via Roger Pielke Jr -- read the comments under his post, as it seems some of the economics in the video aren't really correct. In general, though, it shows what a clusterfuck the emissions trading scheme can be, which is simply a reflection of the basic problem there is just no getting around: reducing atmospheric GHGs is going to cost a lot of money, and not reducing them is going to someday cost a lot of money. You can come up with any scheme you want -- it's going to cost a lot of money. The only solution is development of a cheaper noncarbon energy source than fossil fuels. Period.
Coming Clean - New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme Explained from Lindsay Horner on Vimeo.
By the way, isn't this beautifully filmed?
Coming Clean - New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme Explained from Lindsay Horner on Vimeo.
By the way, isn't this beautifully filmed?
When something needs to be done the best option is always offering the contract to two rivals, see them try to kill each other and then use the taxpayers money to pay the better competitor. There might be some delay in the excecution of the work but at least one gets entertainment while the water main is leaking.
ReplyDelete"The only solution is development of a cheaper noncarbon energy source than fossil fuels. Period."
ReplyDeleteDavid,
I totally agree. Whether is be solar, wind, or nuclear or ..... it has to be cheaper than coal etc. Otherwise it's worse than "breaking windows" for the economy.
I support gov subsidized R%D but no production subsidies.
My favorite is of course LFTR
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/
This is what you get when one tries to put technology into production before it is cost effective. Please take note that taxpayers are on the hook for $500M.
ReplyDelete"President Obama faces political catastrophe in the form of Solyndra -- a San Francisco Bay area solar company that he touted as a gleaming example of green technology. It has announced it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. More than 1,100 people will lose their jobs."
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Solyndra-Filing-a-Disaster-for-Obama-128816968.html
Any trading scheme is going to be gamed and the monitoring de-funded. That is why corporations favor it. A straight carbon tax would eliminate this problem, which is why the vehement opposition.
ReplyDeleteBest,
D
(word verif agrees: recont)
"Any trading scheme is going to be gamed and the monitoring de-funded. That is why corporations favor it. A straight carbon tax would eliminate this problem, which is why the vehement opposition.
ReplyDeleteBest,
D"
Twice in one day Dano and I agree! But you have to add politicos to the corporations. The Dems when they had the House, Senate, and Presidency proposed a Cap and TRADE system. Why? Jest as Dano says. So they could "game it".
Well, it's the only comfortable solution. I can think of two others involving lesser and greater degrees of discomfort.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's the only comfortable solution. I can think of two others involving lesser and greater degrees of discomfort.
ReplyDeletecharlesH has such a short memory that he fails to recall that c+t was developed to make environmental regulation more palatable for Republicans and Wall Street, and that the first such system was put in place under a Republican administration.
ReplyDeleteCharlesH: Steve B is right -- C&T was invented by Republicans, for the ozone problem....
ReplyDelete