Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 145902	2018-02-26 17:16:00	How would you stop gloabal warming (or climate change) ?	Digby (677)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1446772	2018-02-28 00:59:00	Leave your fridge and freezers open hahaha	rob_on_guitar (4196)
1446773	2018-02-28 01:50:00	It's a bad example, the cold weather is being caused by unusually warm conditions over the north pole forcing cold air down. They recently recorded 0 degrees C at the north pole in winter! www.telegraph.co.uk I'm afraid that particular weather pattern is more in line with the predictions you don't believe in. That's been fixed too. :thumbs: 8719	B.M. (505)
1446774	2018-02-28 07:58:00	Fair warning - this post is probably stradling the border between on and off topic. I'm not a climate expert, so I can't try to come up with a comprehensive action plan, as I wouldn't know how much needs to be done, or the most effective areas to target. What I can do - and what I'll attempt to do - is very briefly examine a couple of the commonly used approaches from the perspective of economics, and touch on their theoretical upsides, as well as why they often fall down in practise. I'll also briefly cover my preference, and how I believe it could be most successfully implemented. I'll leave domestic policies like cycleways and petrol taxes alone, and purely examine the issue on a global and country wide level. It should also be noted that the overall approach to climate change must be one of global cooperation and participation. Just as no one country is wholly responsible for climate change, no one country can mitigate it. From the perspective of practicality, one or more hedgemons are needed, both to bear the costs of setting up the overall policy framework, and to use their influence to bring others into line. Bringing certain countries into line may involve a financial cost. This is not a 'bad' thing as such - it needs to be considered as an investment in a better environment. Provided there is an overall net benefit, there is nothing wrong with one country paying another to conduct pollution mitigation. Richer countries are in a far better position to bear the cost of climate change mitigation, while also having considerably more to lose in the failure to do so - due to their much higher asset base. Two common approaches to reduce overall emissions are an emissions trading scheme (ETS), and a carbon tax. While similar in intented effect - reduced emissions - they go about it in different ways. Briefly, and ETS is where a government either issues or sells emission permits (in terms of effectiveness, whether they issue or sell is irrelevent. It is what occurs on the secondary market which matters). To legally emit, an emitter needs to have enough emission permits. Emitters can trade permits among each other. This has two overall effects: 1) The governtment gets to set how many permits it allows, so it can effectively set the level of pollution. 2) The trading scheme allows for the most effiicient (lowest cost) way of pollution reduction. By allowing trading with other countries, this efficiency is extended. However, this needs all trading countries to monitor their emitters correctly, and to set their levels of emission permits at the agreed level. Failure to do so will result in 'joke' permits. Note here that, contrary to some claims, the government doesn't have to pay - it is private firms which bear the cost. If the govt sells permits, it can be revenue positive for the government New Zealand has an ETS. Our scheme has two main issues, which mitigate the overall effectiveness of the policy. Firstly, agriculture and forrestry are exempt from paying. This means the incentive within these sectors to reduce emissions is completely removed (as a side note, it also means the government has to pay the cost of offsetting their emissions, turning the policy into potentially a fairly costly one from the govt). Secondly, we allow our firms to offset emissions with 'joke' permits - effectively heavily reducing any incentive to reduce emmissions by greatly lowering the cost of emitting. A carbon tax is exactly what is sounds like - a set rate tax on emitting. Obviously, this sets the price and lets the market determine quantity of emissions, while an ETS sets quantity and lets the market determine price. Personally, my preference is for an ETS, without the exemptions for agriculture and forrestry, and with much tighter restrictions on which countries we can buy permits from. I'd also have the government initially sell the permits, with the revenue paying for monitoring costs, and subsidies towards environmentally friendly schemes. I'd also consider an additional tax to be paid by firms when they brought overseas permits, to provide a further financial incentive to reduce emissions. Climate change is going to result in additional costs to the government, and they'll have to get the revenue from somewhere! Finally, I'd place import tarriffs on any country not complying with a properly run ETS, to go with subsidies for developing countries which implement one (a properly monitored and run one, not a 'joke' one). This is a mix of carrot and stick, which also has the benefit of ensuring NZ firms are not disadvantaged on the local market by firms which are being effectively subsidised with free pollution.	Nick G (16709)
1446775	2018-02-28 19:47:00	A Nick G I don't see how an ETS actually reduces carbon emmisions Rich countires will just pay it. MY post was really all about..... If you think Man made global warming is happening or Climate Change re caused by increased carbon gas How would you, as president of the world stop it, and reverse it. World wide, not just NZ	Digby (677)
1446776	2018-03-01 00:24:00	A Nick G I don't see how an ETS actually reduces carbon emmisions Rich countires will just pay it. An ETS sets a maximum legally allowed pollution level, and then lets the market adjust the price. You can't 'just pay it' if set up well - because, at some point, you hit the legislated maximum. You're thinking of a carbon tax, where if they are willing to pay the set rate firms can pollute as much as they like.	Nick G (16709)
1446777	2018-03-01 00:43:00	An ETS sets a maximum legally allowed pollution level, and then lets the market adjust the price. You can't 'just pay it' if set up well - because, at some point, you hit the legislated maximum. You're thinking of a carbon tax, where if they are willing to pay the set rate firms can pollute as much as they like. So out of the 230 countries in the world how many will go for the ETS and abide by it 100% Only sucker western liberal countries like us.	Digby (677)
1446778	2018-03-01 02:53:00	I don't see how an ETS actually reduces carbon emmisions MY post was really all about..... How would you, as president of the world stop it, and reverse it. World wide, not just NZ Ok, gotcha. Forget the practicalities of the world we live in, and take an idealistic view of policy. Sweet, no worries. I'll just ignore the bit about your total lack of understanding about what an ETS is, that's no stress..... An ETS sets a maximum legally allowed pollution level, and then lets the market adjust the price. You can't 'just pay it' if set up well - because, at some point, you hit the legislated maximum. You're thinking of a carbon tax, where if they are willing to pay the set rate firms can pollute as much as they like. This is especially true if it was implemented by the president of the world (your suggestion, not mine). All of a sudden you can ignore the need for a hedgemon, and the need to persuade other countries to join by mixing carrot and stick (again, offering the carrot where the cost/benefit ratio is positive). Wouldn't have to worry about how to encourage other countries to join, because, as world president, you wouldn't need to convince them (again, your suggestion to approach the topic from the viewpoint of president of the world). So out of the 230 countries in the world how many will go for the ETS and abide by it 100% Only sucker western liberal countries like us. Ohhhh, I see now. Your whole 'world president' idea is only applied until you dislike the policy, then we're back to indivual countries because it's convenient for you. Tosser. What an absolute d*ckhead you are.	Nick G (16709)
1446779	2018-03-01 04:00:00	Ohhhh, I see now. Your whole 'world president' idea is only applied until you dislike the policy, then we're back to indivual countries because it's convenient for you. Tosser. What an absolute d*ckhead you are. Ok I made a mistake about being world President and then talking about countries complying. (I apoligise for not being consistent) But there is no need to resort to personal abuse	Digby (677)
1446780	2018-03-01 10:06:00	Recently I had solar panels installed on my roof. During the day I get free electricity and send some unused power back to the grid for a lousy 7 cents a KWH so that I can buy it back for nighttime use for 9.59 cents. I also pay $46.23 in various network charges. Some of the solar power goes towards charging the battery on my Toyota Prius hybrid car. I travel to work and back for free with almost zero emissions (sometimes the petrol motor bursts into life). I then step into a diesel burning vehicle which belches exhaust fumes into the atmosphere. You can buy second-hand, electric cars in New Zealand for a reasonable price but they have a limited range and take several hours to recharge. From my readings, the battery life is about ten years from new and they are quite expensive to replace. I would hope that battery technology will improve so that battery life, range, charging time and cost will all improve. I have planted a few small trees on my section and I also mow the lawns on high so that the grass is not cut too short. We all have to do our bit no matter how small.	Bobh (5192)
1446781	2018-03-01 17:42:00	I have a friend who has just moved back to Oz, his brother is the agent for refurbishing the batteries in electric cars and told him that if he buys one he will do the batteries at cost which is about $600Au as opposed to retail about $2000Au	gary67 (56)
1 2 3 4