TalkClimateChange

10 Years for a pilot project, just to test the feasibility? But we have to be at 20% reductions by then legislated in my country! How is starting from scratch going to help anyone unless we are suggesting bulldozing the existing cities.

We need solutions now, and not just slap up a few million wind turbines and 40,000 sq miles of PVs.

We need to change major industries not just create an office city of white collar administration jobs. Then stand back and stay ooo,aaaa look at that!

You want to impress me then convert a major city to a carbon free one. Including the refineries and factories, farms and livestock. Do it in 5-10 years so we can have chance of replicating it in other locations before the 2050 “death to all humans” climate catastrophe.

UAE and other countries in the region do these things to just say they can, no matter the cost because these people can afford to pay 5 million pounds for a license plate.

A Good example is the indoor ski hill in Dubai. That construction loses so much energy that you can see the cold air leaking out of it.

What do they care, they can afford it. Heck they made a set of islands that look like a map of the earth, just for kicks.

This is not innovative green design, it is bragging rights. So I give that to them, good job.

I am serious if you can come up with a plan that can convert a city of 250,000 people to an emissions-free one, without using up all the CO2 emissions saved over 25 Years in the process, I want to to see it!

I have been trying for 2 years but I cannot even get a 75% reduction without a huge spike in emissions during the process, that would completely negate the reduction effort in the time allowed, especially if replicated globally, and would simply be a huge waste of money and would hasten the process of GHG induced GCC, mitigating NOTHING!

I even selected geographically desirable locations with mild climate and long construction seasons and well trained workforce, availablility to solar and hydro power, with an even distribution of industries and locally ( in region ) natural resources to supply the raw materials required, manufacture the equipment and technologies and have regional farming and livestock available.

Now granted I am not the brightest crayon in the box, but I have never seen one plan that can, if you know of such please share with the group.

“UAE and other countries in the region do these things to just say they can”

It’s true.

It’s also true that they use slave labour to achieve their aims. That $220,000 per person ain’t looking so great now, is it? Especially since it doesn’t count the various costs of housing 60% of them!?

Yes, yes, yes & yes on all points.

There are certainly huge practical considerations - something which can often be forgotten.

But remember we need a lot of new housing in developed countries, and if these guys want to fund an experiment into zero emissions housing development then that’s fine with me.

Developed countries do not really fund the creation of new towns and cities on the scale talked about here. We might build a hi-rise or some condos, a new subdivision. We can make builders use higher standards, better insulation, heating and cooling systems, solar assistance, power off systems, etc etc. leading to substantially higher costs for housing. 10% increase in materials, 40% increase in hard fixtures, plus 20% increase in skilled labour to install all the technologies will add 50-70K to a 200,000 house.

I can supply my math for this on request.

So once again green is for the top say 25% of our population. The price of food is set to spike this year with Durham Wheat Futures up 50% from Jan 1. People cannot heat their homes and are now looking at $5.00 for a loaf of multi-grain bread here!
( average price here for multi-grain is 3.99 now ) So we need cheaper housing, not more expensive.

Magic Money Economists, that is what most AGW proponents are, they have no idea how the wealth is distributed across a population, they think everyone can dig 20-30% more out of their pockets for green tech and energy costs.

“the peasants are out of bread!”
“Let them eat Cake!”

Well, I don’t know much about city design, but the average Westerner can get a reduction of two-thirds in their household emissions without significant effort, discomfort, and while saving money, as I note here.

Emissions that households can control directly by their purchases and lifestyle amount to about half of total Western emissions. So 2/3 of 1/2 gives us a 1/3 reduction. Tomorrow. Or in at most a week.

Promote this sort of lifestyle in the same way we went anti-smoking and (here Down Under) anti-water wasting, combine it with government spending and regulations about mass transit, packaging and the like, and we ought to be able to get a 33% reduction in ten years.

20% reduction by 2020 is a doddle. Piece of piss. More ambitious would be a one-tonne carbon lifestyle.

I don’t really see why we need any grand building or rebuilding plans. It’s just simple shit, really.

1. buy electrical power from other sources preferring in order: wind, geothermal, solar, hydroelectric, landfill gas or natural gas, waste burning, bagasse. Don’t even think about nuclear or coal.
2. use cool drinks and fans not airconditioning, jumpers and hot drinks not heating, hang washing out to dry, change to CFLs and pull plugs out on appliances not in use
3. Don’t fly in aircraft at all.
4. bye-bye cars: for a journey under 5km, walk. Under 15km, bike. Over that, public transport.
5. consume mainly fresh fruit and vegies, grains and legumes, avoid processed containerised food
6. reduce meat consumption to under 12kg/year (0.25kg/week)
7. for consumer goods, borrow rather than buy, secondhand rather than new
8. if available, use coppiced wood for heating/cooking, otherwise use that wind powered electricity, or if that’s not available, use natural gas
9. plant trees – don’t pay someone else, plant them where you can watch them and know they’ll be cared for.

Piece of piss, really. I don’t need some grand rebuilding of the city to manage it, and for everyone to manage it would just require that we transfer spending on coal-fired stations to wind, etc, and spending on roads to mass transit, bike paths and the like.

We’re looking for complicated solutions to simple problems. The solutions are simple, physically speaking. It’s just a matter of getting our shit together politically to do them. We’re a bit slow and dim, really.

No drinking, no smoking, no eating, no driving, no breathing.

I mean some of your ideas are good, but how do you go about making sure people do all this? The point is that the majority of people just don’t care.

Relying on individual change has a role to play, but it is no magic bullet. Unless you wish to just kill off the four billion who have no access to electricity, and maybe the further 1.8 billion useless b4stards in developed countries.

Douglas Adams wrote about that in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - the remaining population was wiped out by a disease transmitted by telephones. Brilliant.

I say, rather leave things to chance than employ self-righteous know-it-alls to tell us what to do. In case you’re forgetting, the logical conclusion to self-righteous know-it-all-ness found its greatest expression in that vegetarian artist Adolf Hitler.

#5
“Well, I don’t know much about city design, but the average Westerner can get a reduction of two-thirds in their household emissions without significant effort, discomfort, and while saving money, as I note here.”

My Bullshit detector just broke it was ringing so loud.

Let me just go down your checklist

1. Done, Hydro power 100% of my province. Has been for 50 years.
2. Just brought in my frozen underwear. I have on my ski-suit and boots in the house per your request, but my coffee has ice on it. I live in Canada you dolt.
3. I just became unemployed, my job dealing with international clients requires me to travel.
4. Car not a problem, I use mass transit 90% of the time or walk anyways.
5. Just ate a strawberry from Mexico. Oops since it is winter there is no fresh local produce.
6. So what am I supposed to eat? I am an omnivore, I have no fresh local vetgetables, well I guess I can eat bread, wait Wheat prices are up 50% because of ethanol.
7. My neighbour says sure as soon as the other neighbour gives it back. One vaccumn per block. You would crap your pants in my house, ALL NEW, I moved back to Canada with nothing except my car 2 years ago!
8. It is illegal to burn wood in my condo development for safety reasons. I have an electric cooktop and stove.
9. Where exactly should I plant these? I live in Canada you know home to 80% of world’s boreal forest. Five minutes from my house you are in a old growth Northern Coastal Rain Forest.

Isn’t strange that I still have to cut 20% of emissions over the already mandated 20% in place, 6%,7%,6%,1% (2007-08-09-10) in the next 10 years at the will of government regulations. Without any real plans as to how.

So now I have no food and no job, I cannot use my electric fired heat because .. why was that exacly? Sounds kinda redundent, since my electricity is HYDRO.

Insulation, without it living in Canada is hell frozen over, we have the highest energy efficent building codes matching Sweden, Norway and Finland.

Since you have no concept of the global nature of the problem you really should try and learn some things first. You think that others have not thought about your solutions? You think you have some magic bullet for the planet’s woes?

You are a lifestyle advocate, and a regional one at that, just admit that to yourself and you will be alot less frustrated with people on the internet.

I have to aplogize for alling you a dolt.

That goes against my firm stance on not calling people things like that, you are not a dolt you are just ill-informed.

I apologize to others who I have chastized for that same reason here in the forum. It was very bad form on my part.

Metyu wrote, “how do you go about making sure people do all this?”

Here Down Under, our country was for many years a country of heavy smokers. Over about three decades, we’ve now changed so that the rate of smoking has greatly dropped, and people lighting up in public places generally get very sour looks to say the least. The culture, the lifestyle, has changed.

In my home state of Victoria, we were once very heavy water users. A long drought (largely due to climate change) has meant that we had less water coming into our hydroelectric dams and water reservoirs, so we had to either use it all up fast and die of thirst, or else change our water use to fit the available resources. Some relatively minor “rationing” (no hosing down driveways, etc) has managed to save a lot of water use, and a government advertising campaign “every drop counts” also played its part.

Now the culture, our lifestyle is changed. Recently we had a German acquaintance, he said he was up at 5:45am.
“Why? What time do you start work?”
“8am.”
“And you live in the city, four blocks from work - what takes you so long? Do you go to the gym or what?”
“No, I have a forty minute shower.”
“Forty minutes! Mate, do you know Australia’s in a drought?”
He just shrugged indifferently. He got abuse from the people talking to him

Note this report on water use in Australia.

“Brisbane is the one major urban area that exhibited a marked reduction in per capita water use from mid-1990s levels, a result of the introduction of the current two-part tariff pricing regime. In the Hunter region, pricing reforms in the early 1980s were followed by a sharp decline in per capita use. Melbourne’s decline in per capita use since 1990-91 has been attributed to general consumer awareness along with falling demand in the industrial and commercial sectors.”

Brisbane’s per capita water use has about halved, Melbourne’s declined by 25% or so, depending what timeframe you choose.

If it works for water, I don’t see why it can’t work for electricity, petrol, and so on. A combination of pricing, regulations, and advertising the reasons for them, this should help us get an effective lifestyle change for millions of people in Australia.

So these two things, smoking and water, show that the public attitude, the culture, the lifestyle, they can change. If there’s a rational reason for the change - like public health, or resource shortage - some relatively light legislation combined with advertising the reasons for it, these things can change the culture.

Would it be enough? Enough to meet some particular greenhouse reduction target? I don’t know. But I think it’s worth an honest try - and it doesn’t involve spending trillions of dollars or building entire new cities, on the contrary - as the water report noted, the reductions in per capita water use have let us delay the building of new water infrastructure by up to 30 years. It’s saved us money.

The comparison to Hitler doesn’t help your argument, mate. It’s just absurd. Hitler did not campaign in elections on a platform of vegetarianism.

ClimateHeretic, you needn’t apologise for abusing me. Feel free. I only scan over what you write anyway, since you’re not responding to me and my words personally, you’re responding to some imagined golem made up of the parts of the thousand stupidest greenies and lefties you ever heard from - that’s why you bring up things I never said, fail to click on links to get the full story, and so on. You’re not here to discuss, but to rant at imagined enemies. Rant away.

Incidentally, Sharon Astyk has an interesting post on cultural changes which at first seem impossible. They happen all the time. It’s not easy or automatic, but they do happen - you just have to find the right moment and place to put your lever to move the world.

The public aren’t stupid. If you put in place regulations, tariffs and subsidies, with an advertising campaign explaining the need for change, then they will change, if it really is a genuine need, and not some bullshit. Our lifestyle is not divinely ordained, nor part of our inner animal nature or any bollocks like that. We live the way we do because it seems good to us; if we see that some other way will work better, we’ll go to that.

And I don’t think asking people to use less water or petrol or whatever can fairly be compared to Nazism.

#9 I think you make some good points here Kiashu (good morning, btw. I am about to go to bed). Particularly re: new cities, this is one of my pet hates - e.g. the UK committing to building several Eco-Towns instead of refurbishing tower blocks. Or Arup’s new “sustainable” city in Arizona desert.

I am an ex-smoker. I didn’t need legislation to make me stop. But since the smoking ban in the UK, I can no longer have a brandy and a cigar in a hotel. This simple fact makes me want to move to another country! (dedication to my job is the only thing that makes me stay). While I do believe in moderation, there are only so many rules a government can introduce before before like me say “Enough, get out of my hair”. At this point, aything from brain-drain to civil war can ensue.

Could you please clarify how a GMT temp increase of less than 1oC in the last however many years means that climate change - as in AGW - has led todroughts in Australia. I would imagine what you mean is, increased human consmption (a-la dude having 40 minute shower) has led to droughts. There is a really important issue here, and that is if we confuse the two, draconian global governance structures will be introduced that will exacerbate developing country problems.

I have written on this all over this site, and it is my main conern. Individual actions and pressure on governments is all fine and dandy for Melbourne, but I am concerned that people don’t understand the knock-on effects of this on the global level. And of course at the national level; there is no telling when/if in the coming years, legislation around carbon emissions will give a budding Hitler just what he needs.

To clarify the Hitler comment; he pretty much wanted everyone to be the same. Expel (or kill; but I’m talking in loose terms!) the ones that don’t fit to the ideology, or are considered less evolved. Eugenics fed into this ideology. The point being, that a handful of people who saw how the rest “should” be living caused a whole lot of strife for the rest of us. This happened without the majority of people in Germany even realising what was going on - they were at war and grassing up their neighbours before they knew what hit them. (Gunter Grass’ “The Tin Drum” is a good read).

Yes, the vege comment was a cheap shot, but hey I’m not proud

#10, as I hope I made clear, it’s the implications and the things that can lead from it that concern me. There are already wars being fought for water, so yes please let’s encourage people to do what’s best - I am all for natural change. As I say, it is legislation that bothers me.

Re: changing people, have you heard of Gestalt Shifts?

“Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another” by Philip Ball is an excelent read, if you are interested in this sort of phenomenon from a science/maths perspective.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/waterindex.htm

Kiashu you are a real piece of work.

You started this little love fest with your flat out denier statements about me and the invalidity of my claims based on that assumption.

So of course I am going to work to put you in the light of truth. Exposing you for what you really are.

You are a regional elitist lifestyle advocate. Just for transparency why do you not tell us all who you are, what you do, your history with the issues. I did when asked, I do not see anything here from you except my blog sums me up? My life is an open book, even on the internet and I do not hide behind the avitar I created.

I have never taken anything you said out of context, I have never done anything but meet you point for point in open debate. A skill you do not seem to possess.

Next I read your entire website stem to stern. It is irrelevant in global terms, ranting and infalammitory in others.

From your blog …

“Insults will be kept if they’re funny, and deleted if they’re boring. Flat-earthers, climate change and peak oil deniers count as insulting - to our intelligence.”

That right away sets the tone for your elitist views.

Next your first post…

“We have to recognise how these things work. Some guy driving his four-wheel drive through the rather unhilly and well-metalled roads of Toorak is never going to recognise the child dying of cancer from exposure to benzene in the Niger Delta poisoned by Shell as human. But if you tax the fuck out of his fuel, and if you ask him to agree to laws banning trade with companies who do respect a certain level of environmental and human rights care, then he’ll drive his vehicle less, and happily buy that lesser amount of fuel from somewhere else, and then Nigerian kids will stop dying of cancer from benzene exposure. Do we really need the Toorak Twat to recognise his guilt and responsibility? Does he really need to take that dying kid into his monkeysphere, even for a moment? No, we need him to make amends, and to not sin again - we can achieve that without making him feel guilty at all. We can get him to act without really caring.”

Sound familiar? Nice language too.

Yet you say of children dying of easily preventable aliments simply fixed with drugstore products and unrelated to your personal adgenda…

“I mean, climate change is a big problem. It’s like how Mark just told us of the 10,000 kids dying when they get the runs. What am I supposed to do about that, exactly?”

Nice. I may disagree with you but at least I am consistent in motivation. Yet I read all your postings with great interest. I have yet to see you post one thing that makes one ounce of sense outside of your little sphere of mis-understanding.

I am not mad at a “golem” I am mad a closed minded individual with a pulpit preacher mentality who makes no contributions except throwing out the regular stream of non-starters and poorly conceived ideas. Most apparently founded in mainstream green media, none original, none with any merit.

While your water shortage and change in consumption articles were interesting they are hardly applicable to the issue at hand. I can see how you think they are, most people without the capacity to see beyond their immediate surroundings do.

Just admit that you are what you are and what your motivations are really based on. Hiding behind GCC is a denial of responsibility for your opinions.

Let’s Make Like China and Build

That piece was a real treat! Like reading an Archie comic. I love how you shoot holes in your own BS ideas! Very entertaining! then you come here and still spout your same tired 10 point plan.

“Thus we find that with an “all-out effort” which won’t otherwise harm the economy (6%), we could get 2,681GW of peak renewable capacity by 2050, which is 976GW of delivered energy, rather short of our 21,500GW goal….
Now we see why governments are reluctant to shut down nuclear and fossil fuel burning plants and restrict private vehicles – even an effort on the level of China’s will get us only 5% of the way there by 2050.”

Now your Plan…

“1. buy electrical power from other sources preferring in order: wind, geothermal, solar, hydroelectric, landfill gas or natural gas, waste burning, bagasse. Don’t even think about nuclear or coal.”

Either you do not write your own blog material or you do not believe it? Which is it?

Metyu, it’s not the 1C temperature rise as such that’s caused Australia’s recent drought. The country’s always be prone to them - it’s an old land, geologically-speaking, with not much fertility, which means not much total weight of vegetation. So climate change has just amplified a thing we already had here, like a guy with a family history of heart disease who eats a lot of burgers.

By a “drought” I don’t mean we’re consuming more water than we have, I mean that we’re getting less water than we did in the past. There’s been less rainfall.

I too enjoy a brandy and cigar, but I set that pleasure as of relatively small weight against millions of deaths from heart disease and smoking. Of course that does not mean I think that every law about smoking is perfect. I brought up that example not to say that our laws were perfect, but to demonstrate that changes of lifestyle can happen without genocidal fascism creating that change, or being the natural consequence of those changes.

ClimateHeretic, I’m glad you found my blog entertaining, even if only to sneer at. That I livened up someone’s day brings a warm glow to my heart.

I don’t see the contradiction between saying that change should begin with the personal, but be supported by government. That’s just the process of democracy. As individuals we do what we can to reduce our individual impact. Will that save the world? Of course not. Likewise, that I am faithful to my wife and refrain from stealing from my employer will not make the entire world faithful and honest. But it’s still the right thing to do. The argument that to do right is futile is the argument of lazy cowards.

I don’t personally care about children dying in Africa. How can I? I don’t know them. However, if someone tells me how I can help them, then I’ll do it, inasmuch as my time and money are limited and I can’t help everyone, I have to choose a few pet causes. I don’t have to care personally to render assistance. That’s what we have a civilisation for - to let us look after people even though we don’t care about them.

The relevance of the water and smoking issues is quite simply to show that the way people live their daily lives can and does change in response to public welfare issues, to government interference.

Yes, I am elitist. I am better than people who don’t believe in democracy, or who are ignorant of science and yet blather on about it. Now, in your personal and offline life, ClimateHeretic, I make no judgments - I have no knowledge of it (nor am I interested). But when it comes to understanding and acting on climate and resource depletion issues, going on what you’ve said and your rather rambling website (mine rambles, too, but hey - it’s a blog!), I am better than you.

I don’t see what my personal life has to do with the truth or falsity of my words. My personal life is none of your fucking business, nor yours any of mine.

“Yes, I am elitist. I am better than people who don’t believe in democracy, or who are ignorant of science and yet blather on about it. Now, in your personal and offline life, ClimateHeretic, I make no judgments”

Since there is no distinction for me, as I stated, I do not hide behind my avitar,so I have one life and it is availabe for everyone to see … so does this comment ring any bells?

“So you’re a climate change denier, then, ClimateHeretic?

Awesome, glad to know that, now I know I can just scan over your posts as I would a flat-Earther.

You should have said that first, it would have saved us a lot of pointless back-and-forth.”

Seems pretty judgemental to me.

” - I have no knowledge of it (nor am I interested). But when it comes to understanding and acting on climate and resource depletion issues, going on what you’ve said and your rather rambling website (mine rambles, too, but hey - it’s a blog!), I am better than you. ”

Please do inform me oh great and wise one how you come to that conclusion?

My site is a blog as well and it is clearly stated as such. Yet I welcome others to it, unlike you who put up your little petty members only sign in the form of the statement quoted previously.

You name the issue and I will debate you openly. This is a site for debate it is not a place for you to post your tired lifestyle positions on unless you are prepared to defend them and your opinions.

So are you really the “Foghorn Leghorn” I suspect or do you really have something to contribute?

For me there’s a distinction between my personal and online lives because I’ve had webstalkers, who can get unpleasantly threatening. Also, much of my life is defined by my relationships with people, so I cannot reveal a lot of myself without revealing a lot about them, too - and it’s only courteous to let them be the ones who decide how much to publicly reveal about themselves, not me.

Of course if you make the effort and go digging and googling you’ll discover a lot about me. It’s impossible to post online for several years without revealing a lot in one way or another. I just take reasonable steps to maintain privacy, the privacy equivalent of locking the door when you go out - you won’t stop determined people, but will stop the casual ones.

Absolutely I’m judgmental. I just don’t judge you as an individual, your private life or anything like that. But in climate change and similar discussions, I judge your expressed opinions, which are wrong and deliberately obtuse. I also judge your debating style, which consists of ignoring 90% of what the person says, and focusing on what someone else said at some other time in some other place. For example, here you take no notice at all of my response to Metyu, instead focusing on me personally. Which of course makes the debate a lot easier for you, but a bit pointless for everyone else.

My blog’s not “members only” for people who believe X or Y. It aims to exclude people who bore me. Insults, including insults to our intelligence, will be kept if they’re amusing. I don’t maintain a blog to be bored, I can do that with my modem off, after all.

Your blog certainly isn’t presented as a blog. And it’s full of absurdities. For example, no-one counts humans breathing as contributions to carbon dioxide emissions. And your short division needs work. You say that China needs to reduce from 5,010,170,000t CO2e emissions to 654,500,866t, and call this a 99.87% reduction. Whereas in fact it’s an 87% reduction. I imagine you got 0.13 on your calculator and thought that was 0.13% rather than 13%.

Your blog/site’s riddled with errors and absurdities like that. There comes a point when it’s really not worth reading any further. I discuss things to learn - that’s why you can easily find comments by me from years ago which are contradicted by comments by me from today - unlike a good portion of the people discussing things online, I don’t pretend to have held the same ideas and opinions since I popped out of my mother’s womb. I discuss, learn, make mistakes and change my mind. I refine my ideas as time goes on (as you can see most markedly in the Ecotechnia series of articles). Just as there’s an EROEI there’s an IROII - information, rather than energy. So if I find someone who thinks that human breath is a significant contribution to greenhouse gases and who doesn’t even know what a percentage is, and then that person says, “sorry, you’re not a dolt, just uninformed”, well I think the discussion with that person is not going to be productive for either of us.

Another point is that even if it were going to cost billions to change our cities, well we spend billions on them already. Like here in Melbourne we recently spent A$2.5 billion on 45km of road, “EastLink”. And every state and territory government, and the federal government, have large budget surpluses.

So okay, the US with a US$21 trillion in public and private debt, and another couple of trillion in deficits trade and budget may be in trouble, but not most Western countries…

Ok read the post. I asked for you to check the math, that was a clue there was something wrong I want people to think for themselves and not just accept what I say, the human breathing statement was used for the same effect. I tend to put little sacarstic gems in my posts to see if people really read them.

I expect readers to call me on them, so they are there for a reason. If I said that up front it would not be much fun when you find them now would it?

I am the first to admit that I am relatively low-skilled as a writer and make no claims to the contrary, yet as you would say how does that invalidate my opinions?

I too change my mind, and have right here in regards to CFL bulbs for example. My problem was proper disposal, I learned from Mark that the option was available at IKEA, and luckily one was found 20 min from my home. So now my distain for them has been dimished considerably on a personal level, globally I am still worried about the effect on the environment as they end up in landfills. I also think a product transported half way around the world to save CO2 seems to be a strange trade-off.

I have even placed a recycling bin for them for use in my condo complex as to not waste the trips to the store.

Evolution is a wonderful thing.

When I find someone on a climate change discussion site who simply suggests lifestyle changes and acknowledges they are not the answer to a global problem that is the primary topic of the site I tend to think there is not much to learn either.

Do you really think re-posting your 10 point plan is a constructive exercise in this context? Do not answer that it was sarcasm.

So lets simply agree to disagree.

Kiashu you are right, all countries invest huge amounts of money in infrastructure.

The US has been fairly bad in that department for the last 15-20 years, with states fighting for funding and this resulting in huge amounts of municipal bonds being issued, a big part of the current credit crisis there.

This money should be used to transform our cities, my point was not paying for it, rather it was achieving the goal of GHG reductions.

I think that most reduction ideas can be paid for rather handily from existing coffers, that is why I am against a price on carbon. The issue is the time versus reduction convergence that is rapidly approaching. Spending 10 Billion per city per year adds up fast, so we need to spread it out longer than we seem to have to act on GHG reductions, the other brick in the wall is that construction is very GHG emission intensive.

I myself believe that investment in universal central wharehousing, low-emission transporation systems, such as rail for moving goods to retail locations from these distribution points is an excellent choice for city emission reductions.

Look at the traffic pattern in any city, it is the commercial transport that causes a huge portion of the congestion during the day. Less idle time waiting in a car decreases emissions as well.

Play nicely, children

“all countries invest huge amounts of money in infrastructure.”

New Orleans springs to mind. Another of my irritations: spend money building wind turbines and solar panels, or build flood defences and sort

out the governance structures that stopped hundreds of ambulances getting to where they were needed. And please don’t come back with “we can

do both”. The US wasn’t able to do either, despite all the warnings from engineers and other specialists.

“I don’t personally care about children dying in Africa. How can I? I don’t know them.”

I was hoping you’d say that. If you don’t understand how wars and trade in Africa affect global governance structures and the price of bread

in your country, then perhaps you shouldn’t be debating global issues?

It’s all very well to be versed in Australia’s problems - with your massive 20 million population! - but they are not applicable

across the board. And how many of that 20 million do you actually know? Or do you not care about them either?

As you may note from the global policy link I sent, Ban Ki Moon links climate change to the problems of Darfur. His answer? Economic

development. Can you then see the link from this to China, the US, international trade relations and therefore your country? I know you’re

isolated down there, and there’s not many of you, but you are quite a player on the global stage, if only because of your mineral reserves. (certainly not because of the businesswomen that still wear 80s-style shoulder pads ;))

Metyu,

Sorry Dad. but but but he started it.

***that was an attempt at humour***

On a more positive note, I have learned that a another new high-speed rail project is under consideration in my country to move people and goods between two major cities in the Province in Alberta.

Again I wish I could take credit but my suggestions were sent to my federal MP and this project was annouced at the provincial level.

I believe that two major hurdles for the overall reduction of GHG in every developed and developing nation are the power distribution grid and transportation of goods. I think both can be enhanced together as power grids can follow the rail lines and be installed during the construction/upgrade phase. This applies to heavily railed countries in Europe as well to a different degree.

Rail lines also can open access to remote areas that can be used for wind, geothermal and solar projects and provide a low-emission transportation system for the construction of these projects.

High speed data, television and telephone service can be brought to rural areas by running fibre optics as well. Improving access and remote participation for rural educators and students allowing access to higher education not currently available.

We need a generation of engineers and scientists, we cannot compete as labour and manufacturing with places like India and China.

Well, I reckon a carbon tax would be a good thing, because then you can attack the problem from bottom-up and top-down. You’re using both the carrot (better less fossil fuel-intensive infrastructure) and the stick (tax the stuff you want them to use less of). That works better than just carrot or just stick.

Also politically here in the West it’s an easier scheme to sell, “okay we’ll raise $X from the carbon taxes, and spend $X on renewables, etc”. That’s easier to get done than to say, “we’ll take $X out of the roads budget and put it into rail” or whatever.

Look, we’ve got here a confusion of terms about these children in Africa. To say, “I don’t care personally” does not mean, “I don’t care at all”, nor does it mean, “and I don’t know anything about it.” My point is that a lot of talk about big issues - like climate change, or easily preventable deaths of Third World children - is people trying to get us to care on a very personal level. But that kind of intimate caring is limited by our human nature. That’s why we have things like taxes and laws and institutions, so that we can help people even though we don’t personally care about them, or even know them at all.

I can know of a problem, recognise it, and understand it in some detail, without personally caring about it. That’s why we have these things we call “virtues”, like fidelity, honesty and so on. They’re principles to guide us so that we can deal with people as though we care about them personally even though we don’t.

We’re hit every day with appeals to our personal compassion. On tv each evening perhaps six or seven different charity organisations advertise, and as many knock on my door at home each week, not to mention all those in the street around shopping centres. But I’m human, how many different issues can I care deeply about?

So I think that when we’re presenting an issue we think is important, if we want to actually get something done, it’s best to recognise this aspect of human nature, of limited attention and room to care personally, and instead to strive to build institutions and incentives and disincentives to help solve the problems we have.

This is where I believe that a huge difference exists in the carbon tax issue. I do not think I can trust my Government to act responsibly to insure x taxes = y renewables. Energy delivery is a for profit venture, companies should be offered incentives to deploy these projects.

By incentives I do not mean a whack on the bottom line. I mean a mechinism to encourage investment.
Capital expenditure on mitigation measures with write downs of 100% over 2-10 Years. Fast tracked site selections and release of crown lands.

Government guaranteed loans for R&D and project assessments. Tax credits for more educational sponsorship with better engineering and science specific to industry with internships. Repayable investment captial matching in new technology implementation and marketing as a technology export. Tax free R&D operations until product marketing.

These investments have potential to create a reward to the industries as viable products and technologies are developed, giving money to Government is not a investment.

Speaking as a Businessman

Why invest when you can simply pass the taxes to the consumer, wait for the government to do the R&D and site selections, get past the environmental assessments and pay all the legal costs from your and everyone else’s taxes. Then simply negotiate an operations and transmission deal ( remember the government does not own the power lines or distribution grid),by buying the power for less than market and tacking the profits on at the meter. Or even better yet as the operations operate in a subsidized loss, buy the projects outright for 50% of initial cost.

Also note the governments do not own rail lines either, unless they are operated by crown corporations, except in urban transporation and historical lines. So finacing for city to city would be all private capital.

Cities who are funds poor could lease the right of ways and have the transportation system privately owned.

No new taxes for anyone. Renewables get deployed and mixed in with current supply for a harmonized meter price, win-win.

Just my opinion.

Well, certainly there are many ways it could be done.

I’d have carbon taxes in lieu of others, if I were Dictator of Australia and could decide it all myself. So the overall tax burden would remain the same, but individuals could by their behaviour and lifestyle pay more or less tax.

One small note: here Down Under in almost all cases the energy and transport infrastructure is owned by the state or federal government, “privatisation” just means they lease out the right to operate the thing.

Also, “Oh I knew it was a mistake, I was only testing you,” - that’s an old one. Yeah sure mate, we believe you.

Sure is an old one, it is the same trick, putting in mistakes, that my Algebra Professor used on us to make sure we payed attention. He actually gave out candy bars to those that spotted them… so you want a reward?

“One small note: here Down Under in almost all cases the energy and transport infrastructure is owned by the state or federal government, “privatisation” just means they lease out the right to operate the thing.”

Here the crown owns the land, the actual wires and towers, substations and generators are owned and maintained by the power company.

Must be expensive for your Gov to maintain the grid, lines go down, transformers go out. So in your country the Gov is the developer/landlord, so it is their responsibility to build these projects, so I assume like a wise government should, that they have a budgeted amount for these projects each year?

In the US,Canada and UK as far as I can tell, Mark maybe able to confirm this,utilities are private/publicly traded businesses. So if you would like to see more renewables and are willing to pay a tax, go buy shares in the company with that money ( make sure to buy directly from the company not on the open exchange, you will just be paying someone else), share revenue is used for operational expansion. Plus you usually get a good investment with a dividend, and as they expand you will see higher share prices and grow your assets.

Power companies are not afraid of depolying renewables or upgrading infrastructures, it is their business, but as Mark posted previously new developments are facing other challenges from competing environmental and social groups.

Additionally they are relectant to spend money on projects that may or may not be acceptable in the future as the goals and accepted methods keep changing.

Uncertainty is the worst economic environment for change.

Legislating them to do so or taxing them to force finance projects that will relace their own businesses seems to be mine and their largest reason for the resistence to the taxes and price on carbon.

If I told you I was going in to the same business as you, serving your customers, and that you had to pay me to do so, you would be a little reluctant as well.