TalkClimateChange

This explanation, while etertaining, is not founded in reality. There are so many things wrong with the statements here I cannot even start to go into them.

I will say this, carbon taxes do not work if your goal is reduction. Corporations pay the tax and pass the costs to consumers, refitting production is costly, so If they want to save part of the tax, they will pass the cost of new technologies on to the consumer. The CO2 reduction technologies do nothing except impact a business’s profitablity, they are NOT production enhancing in any way nor do they provide a material cost savings.

CO2 is produced by every industry in the western world, you are not just affecting one sector like pollution controls in the past (Sulfur Dioxide and CFC), it is across all, this has never been done before through regulation, taxes, or commodity trading. The effects will be large, not one person of note thinks otherwise, the Canadian Prime Minister said in his end of year speech “the reductions will be enforced in the spring, and they will hurt and the effects will be deep”, the EU is considering trade tariffs to “level the playing field” due to increased costs of manufactured goods. Al Gore knows, he says you must be willing to sacrifice for a protracted battle against CO2 emissions. The US Government knows, the economy in the US is hitting the skids ( they cannot say that for politcal reasons ),and they do not want the costs of emission reduction to be added to the woes. The same in Japan.

This is a regurgation of environmental “it will be good for the economy” rhetoric that is so far removed from the truth as to be labelled as fiction.

ADVICE TO BLUE AND GREEN TEAMS:

When it comes to the costs of mitigation and stabilization just tell the people the truth, it will hurt and hurt bad until we can get things under control, and this is what it will take.

Thanks for your comments.

We are not saying that cap & trade will not make goods more expensive (in the short term at least), merely that there are plenty of competitive benefits which offset this and which have the potential to ultimately reduce prices.

You are right, taxes do not work if your goal is reduction - although they do potentially alter consumer behaviour, which cap & trade does not. Conversely, cap & trade does reduce overall output, but doesn’t have such a direct influence on consumer behaviour.

Strictly speaking your statement that Co2 reduction technologies are not production enhancing is correct, but ignores the fact that Co2 = energy = cost, which opens up massive potential for efficient production technology development.

We won’t argue that cap & trade might hurt, but we do believe that there are benefits to be obtained at the same time.

“ignores the fact that Co2 = energy = cost”

Your entire base logic is flawed. I will use Canada as an example.
Nearly 70% of our “energy” production is zero CO2. Yet we are one of the highest emitters per capita. Why?

Because side effects of our primary industries, resource extraction, construction, agriculture, transportaion and manufacturing create CO2 emissions. So your logic is flawed when applied the entire range of economic activities.

This is the fantasy portion of this simplistic over generalization, it is not a simple a = b = c equation.

Canada will see no benefits as all mitigation methods for us will involve increased costs outside of the sphere of energy production.

“Because side effects of our primary industries, resource extraction, construction, agriculture, transportation and manufacturing create CO2 emissions. So your logic is flawed when applied the entire range of economic activities.”

You are saying that there is absolutely no opportunity to reduce Co2 reduction in any of these activities? Just to be clear.

What I am saying is that these industies produce CO2, not buy burning fossil fuels but as direct result of refining, milling, smelting and processing, reducing it will not increase productivity in the sector, it will burden the sector with increased costs for capture and sequestration, the only viable short term solution outside of reducing the output of the industry. Which is what a CAP and Trade system will do, immediately.

Can new technology in these sectors allow CO2 emission reductions in the future? Of Course.

Please try and understand Canada is an exporter of resources to the world. We do not manufacture that much, our economy is so different from other industrialized countries the metric does not apply. We send processed foods, refined minerals, lumber, oil and gas, copper, nickel, gold, uranium, platinum, salt, and 1,000 other rare base elements all around the world. That is our economy, we import finshed goods back, the part of other countries energy intensive production that you cite as the cause of CO2 emissions in your equation. It is almost a feedback loop, we will increase the price of raw materials to offset production loss or sequestration costs, you will produce a finished product that will cost more because we charged more for the raw materials added to higher energy prices under your mitigation solutions, so you charge us more for the finshed goods, so we have to charge more for the raw materials, etc, etc.

Do you see my point?

Russia is in the same situation with a much reduced standard of living. They stand to make a fortune just on accrued carbon credits under Kyoto. They are going to make out like bandits under this global system and their resource extraction is far less CO2 intense then ours.

Sorry I mistated something, I meant to say …un-processed foods and un-refined minerals…

I apologize for the confusion.

Well done Canada. 70% Co2 free enegery means that you are already pretty much there.

As far as I know, Co2 caps would only apply to energy usage, not Co2 produced as a by product of other industrial processes.

Phil, I truly wish that was the case but it is not. The UNFCCC uses the completely non-relevant figure of per capita emissions as a whole number across all industries when determining mitigation requirements. This is how they give the mega-populations of India and China the “free pass” for mitigation. Canada has 33 Million people, yet the 11th largest economy and the second largest country in the world.

That completely sucks.

I think that cap and trade is not very good because just like the above reading says, that it is not very thought out by the politicians and most of their easy decisions are not thought out very well.