The London School of Economics & Political Science released a paper discussing the current failure of policy to effect carbon emissions reduction across the world, and a better way to effect these changes. Key points (emphasis mine):
The crash of 2009 presents an immense opportunity to set climate policy free to fly at last. The principal motivation and purpose of this Paper is to explain and to advance this opportunity. To do so involves understanding and accepting a startling proposition. It is now plain that it is not possible to have a ‘climate policy’ that has emissions reductions as the all encompassing goal. However, there are many other reasons why the decarbonisation of the global economy is highly desirable. Therefore, the Paper advocates a radical reframing – an inverting – of approach: accepting that decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.
The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.
It explains radical and practical ways to reduce non-CO2 human forcing of climate. It argues that improved climate risk management is a valid policy goal, and is not simply congruent with carbon policy. It explains the political prerequisite of energy efficiency strategies as a first step and documents how this can achieve real emissions reductions. But, above all, it emphasises the primacy of accelerating decarbonisation of energy supply. This calls for very substantially increased investment in innovation in non-carbon energy sources in order to diversify energy supply technologies. The ultimate goal of doing this is to develop non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidised costs less than those using fossil fuels. The Hartwell Paper advocates funding this work by low hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes. It opens discussion on how to channel such money productively.
To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness –which has failed and will continue to fail.“
These are concepts environmentalists just don’t get. They operate under the idea that government can just force things to change.
Nose of the camel, M. Rocket.
Smart play for the Brits. They know that “skepticism” has just about wiped out their arguments for an “emergency” reaction to GlowBull Warmening, so they have given a little ground.
You can never give these liars an inch, I say.
I’m firmly in the camp that the climate is warming and we are doing something to contribute to it, but I don’t buy the “consensus” view regarding how much we contribute, or what to do about it.
Recognizing that we need to create solutions people will willingly participate in is the first step in getting our world off of dead dinosaur energy. As RAH once said:
Never appeal to a man’s better nature, he may not have one. You get more leverage appealing to his self-interest.