150 comments on The Risks of "Cap and Trade"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
150 comments on The Risks of "Cap and Trade"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore; that has profound geopolitical implications.”
—Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (May 1, 2005)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
I see shaman has already pretty much made my point
It seems to me that your entire argument is based on the false premise that the current economy is going to recover and that it should be protected at all costs. Furthermore that it is less expensive to maintain BAU than it is to change our lifestyles.
I realize that I will probably be held to account as a doomsayer when I suggest that there is growing evidence from multiple fronts that the current system is not sustainable. It is perfectly plausible that the social and economic cost for transitioning to alternative sources of energy to maintain BAU will cause the system to collapse even faster.
All the more reason to use our resources more wisely and invest heavily in a completely new paradigm.
I will readily admit that I have no idea what that new paradigm will look like but I will bet my last dollar that it will not look like BAU.
It is the maintaining of BAU that is utterly beyond our current economic means especially if we look at the global economy from an ecological viewpoint, the sooner we figure this into our accounting practices the sooner we stop digging the hole we are in now.
There will certainly be costs if we don't, the least of which may turn out to be economic.
I happen to think you're in good company ;-).
The fact that I'm familiar with the work you are doing makes me appreciate that comment even more!
Like many other subjects which get tossed around here the notion of effecting some kind of universal paradigm shift in investors away from capital growth strikes me as little more than fantasy football. And you will bring this about how? As Bill Hicks said, after advising all the marketing and advertising people in his audience to kill themselves: "You know what drives me nuts? All the marketing guys are saying to themselves, "Oooh, Bill's going after that anti-marketing market. That's a hot market right now.""
The Marketing Guys, for obvious reasons, are part of the uber-reactionaries.
If a few of them wanted to test the limits of the theory of gravity by stepping out of windows in very tall buildings, I'm sure we could scrape them off the sidewalk and use their remains as starting fertilizer to plant some trees. [/Rant-Off]
Curious, do you expect such a paradigm shift to come about in a more or less orderly fashion or cataclysmically. How many people do we add to this planet a second?
Growing or dying seems to be a natural rule, the shift that would be most disireable would be a change in the nature of economic growth not its cessation. The current system that adds ever more consumers while increasing the supply of cheap labor appears to be near maxed out.
Unfortunately for ever so many is way paradigm shift could well come about when the ever increasing population and ensuing consumption pressure finally blows the pressure release valve.
I have been managing my own little population overshoot by keeping a bunch of bird feeders filled with high energy seed through the winter. It has been great to have all the birds around but the woods are certainly noisier than usual this spring. Can't say what will happen if the feeders aren't supplied next season, but I'm guessing spring would be quieter.
I'm afraid modern civilization has been energizing at the hydrocarbon feeders for quite some time, with an ever increasing number of feeders constantly coming on line. Not to much arguement left against the inability to keep a lot of those feeders filled all that much farther out. It could get a lot quieter shortly after the feeders start going empty maybe just after the noisiest of springs.
"change in the nature of economic growth"
The rest of your post suggests that you understand the basic fact that limitless growth is impossible, so why are you (or really why are we as a culture) obsessed with continuing economic growth forever. Hasn't it already done enough to destroy the living world?
I do believe some sort of continuous sort of economic growth is possible if we soon quit growing population. Substantial moves toward total recycling, true renewables and more efficient technologies could improve (very subjective I know but few who live in places like Sudan would have much trouble with the term) the standard of living for the bulk of human kind. The developed world's economy would necessarily grow as the rest of the world gets pulled up from hand to mouth existence...if this unlikely though to my mind desireable scenario were to be achieved, and decades of substantially different behavior by all that will take, a new definition of what sort of growth (economic, cultural, spirtual, you name the mix, though population growth seems unlikely to be part of a it) human civilization needs to truly flourish could evolve.
Very utopian I know, but what I consider the more likely outcome of what we have I already intimated many times in many different fashions. The chance of such change happenning without cataclyism...well it is really the only bet regardless of the astronomical odds against it as few will be left to pay off and little will be left to pay off with any bets bets made on our failure to change.
For all the problems our headlong consuming society has created in my lifetime I still find this a much less oppressive cultural atmosphere than the one I grew up in during the fifties--the sort of intolerance we had back then I don't want to see again...but the tradeoffs have been immense.
But the anthrofeeders are not going to remain full of cheap energy much longer (not to mention the shortage of watering stations). Change, great change, is inevitable.
You're not going to convince those at the core of any belief system that the system is failing, at least not first. The change will come from the edges.
Moreover, "we" (meaning those of us who already understand this) don't have to do anything. There are sufficient internal contradictions within that belief system that the work is accomplished whether "we" do anything or not.
(Those contradictions would include things like peak oil, climate change, loss of spirituality, excessive poverty, wealth disparity, etc.)
"I realize that I will probably be held to account as a doomsayer"
On the contrary. Whenever I see your moniker, I start singing to myself:
I've got sunshine on a cloudy day.
When it's cold outside, I've got the month of May.
I guess you'll say, what can make me feel this way:
Magyar, Magyar, Magyar, talkin' 'bout Magyaaar.....
Who was it by the way that rewrote "Imagine" replacing "dreamer" with "doomer"?
ROTFL!
Nicely done :-).
Aye Aye Captain Doomsayer
I like to look at the resistance and sluggishness and lack of foresight in transitioning from the growth and fossil economies as a blessing--a certain amount of real self-imposed trauma and suffering is necessary to drive the collective shift in the social psyche. Given the depth and reach of this shift, the necessary amount of suffering may be great. We shouldn't knock one of our biggest allies. Step back and let him do his work rather.
I rather doubt that you will be held to account as a doomsayer. You have stated an opinion about BAU versus a new paradigm; that does not make you a doomer. A doomer is generally someone who proclaims doom no matter what is done--and waits anxiously for his fantasies to be realized.
One question would be: Do you see the cap and trade proposal as a good way to go into a new paradigm? Are there, perhaps, better ways of ushering the new age than through what I regard as a boneheaded approach?
Given my cumulative life experience of 56 years, lived out on multiple continents and having been exposed to many different cultures, types of beauracracies, forms of government and the global corporate world on many levels, I must say I am deeply skeptical that this particular idea will work.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the potential for loopholes is immense, so even if the end goal of such a system is to reduce the overall global Co2 footprint it just may end up passing the buck so to speak.
Having said that it is probably still better than nothing at this point. Obviously there are no simple answers.
"the potential for loopholes is immense"
Exactly right. Even ardent advocates of C&T that I have debated in public admit that any such scheme will need to be extremely complicated. This is exactly why those most expert at exploiting complication for profit are for this thing.