Reply To: Cap and Trade

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

You then give two examples to make your point (for which I applaud you by the way)
…A third of the number that will die, this year, from lack of energy. As I posted earlier there are top evangelists for the environmentalist view who do not think cap & trade will achieve even this much.

Thank you for the applause, but what kind of power do you think they need?
I agree that they need lighting, refrigeration, clean water, communications. But that can be supplied more cheaply and inexpensively in a distributed fashion, and most of the time with no/minimal/muscle power. There are solutions to most problems:
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/
its just a matter of funding to implement them. And if properly done Cap & Trade can benefit those poor countries, because by not having any fossil fuels to burn they can sell their right to emit Co2 and buy the aid their need instead of putting their countries into debt or relying on foreign help.
The alternative is to build a huge infrastructure with centralized fossil fuel plants (which will be operated as cheap as possible meaning all the unfiltered pollution), and distribution network (lower efficiency), water pipes, water treatment facilities and then tax all the villagers (into oblivion) to support this infrastructure.
One interesting part is that FF is also a non-carbon source, so Cap & Trade legislation can help push this technology in research, development and distribution.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Other environmental initiatives have actually made matters worse. In recent years the colossal increase in bio-fuel crops, which effectively put food into cars, drove up food prices. The World Bank states that this has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger.
…
It is not sufficient to say “we will do this because of what might happen in the future if temperature goes up 1oC” when we know full well what will happen if we continue energy deprivation. It will be every bit as bad or even worse. To put it harshly, do we let someone die now on the off chance we might save someone later?
Sorry this is so long but you touched a raw nerve. >:-(

Well I agree that when improperly or unreasonably done legislation can cause more harm than good. I never was a supported of bio-fuels, solar panels on other hand is something I like. There are many designs for solar panels, some of them can be homemade, some of them can be cheaper than fossil fuels. Its also a matter of funding to get them into the hand in need. And if you remember FF is still (probably) 10 years away, so why don’t we save someone now?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the problems the poor of the world are facing. The techy solutions you suggest are available to them only in small measures at (for them) immense cost. And the most direct routes to improvement of their conditions are explicitly verboten under the anti-CO2 rubric. They have no “carbon credits” to trade with, that’s simply dreaming. One’s saleable “right to omit CO2” is a function of the plant you have in place. If you have none, you’re SOL. A few areas can refrain from cutting trees and get them that way, etc., but for Africans living hand-to-mouth, e.g., there is no base from which to begin.

Many or most Africans themselves regard the prospect of C-a-T as a farcical disaster. They are right.

If you want an example of the kind of practical initiative that can work (nothing to do with C-a-T), check out lutw.org .