What is the best policy solution to global warming?

I’m not sure yet.

I quite like Lomborg’s suggestion of $2/ton on CO2 to be spent entirely on R&D of new energy technologies, with patents available to all. $25bn/yr would be a ten-fold increase in investment and it _should_ lead to breakthroughs that will bring renewable techs to market quickly.

Right now I think we need to stabilise somewhere between 5-550ppm CO2 (compared with politicians who’re talking about 450ppm), and my favoured solution is either a carbon tax, with money raised split between countries by population and pollution levels (eg Americans start with much more money per person, but slowly it contracts and converges). This is simpler than cap & trade and countries can do what they want with the money.

Alternatively, a simpler ‘cap and trade’ system would sell all permits at auction and companies would have to buy permits to dig up fossil fuels or chop down trees. Permits would be generated by planting trees or burying CO2. Only real carbon fluxes are considered, and there are fewer companies (so less bureaucracy) dealing with this. Easier than regulating every smokestack and car exhaust… Again, money would be given to countries to spend using ‘contraction and convergence’.

In the case of my country, I’d hope a portion would go to renewable R&D, and the rest would be split evenly between the population. This way it’s ‘progressive’.

The costs would be the ‘deadweight loss’:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

Which would be significantly lower than the headline figure.

Ultimately a market driven solution will solve the issue. A global warming issue or the issue of a weakening economy. The rising costs of energy and the hidden costs of fossil fuel/energy (pollution, asthma, acid rain, oil spills, flame offs, and maybe just maybe global warming…) are linked together somehow. The rising cost of fossil fuels will continue due to the fact that it costs more to get to deeper deposits. Also, continued dependence is not a wise course; an economy can collapse from an interuption in supply. A market driven solution. Whoever solves the energy issue, its costs and its hidden costs and liabilities, is going to be rich. We are on the verge of epic technological advancements. These innovations will take hold quicker thru society than the computer did. The next generation will look back on ours as the last of the fire era and know that the term energy shortage was a term for unenlightened minds. All the energy that is, was, or ever will be is her right now; changing form. “Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy.” – Albert Einstein – Greg See sources for 136 roadworthy vehicles that get 1 mpg racing for an X Foundation Prize. Note Nelson team is a full size Ford SUV with no hybrid technology. AFS Zero Fuel teams car runs on Urea. Orion Project creates electricity from the space between matter. The book by Louis Arnoux has wonderful material on the future of solar… storing it for on demand power as compressed air. The byproducts are heat and cooling. Ingenius, lets hear it for innovators… market driven folks.

Right now, all climate neutral energy sources come in the form of electricity, be it nuclear, wind, solar, or “blue” energy. Biofuels have very limited potential and very probably enhance global warming.Electricity requires infrastructure, and just to be able to plug new technologies, huge investment are required.

Right now, most electricity grids are organized as a hub: a few centres where electricity is produced in predictable and controllable quantities. renewables such as solar and wind are inherently unpredictable, require as much more consumption stations, and are likely to be produced in deserts or seas, far away from consumption sites. Networks already have great difficulty accepting electricity from wind and solar on traditional networks A more suitable production and consumption grid would resemble a peer-to-peer network. Produce and consume in multiple locations, and use multiple, dispersed units for storage. For instance the batteries in our (future) electric cars.

To build infrastructure that supports such dispersed energy production requires vast investments, and implies huge risks. The only actor that can carry the risks of such an investment is a government.

Since a cap and trade market would provide little funds (the goal of making a market in the first place is to siphon off as little capital as possible) a tax is necessary. Taxation of fossil fuels would be a good candidate: taxation of fossils discourages their use, thereby limiting the technological lock in. As a bonus, such a tax will cushion the effects of price-spikes on the economy. Partnerships with companies can bring in the necessary capital and knowledge, but building such innovative infrastructure requires leadership and vision that only a large, continuous organization like a government can deliver.

A lot of people here will scream: communism! rely on markets, that’s how people choose what they really want. Fact is that the oil-industry is the best sponsored industry in the world. Risks for investments are typically carried by governments, operations are protected by the (US) military since the dawn of the oil-age without any question, and environmental effects are turned to the local population. Without extensive government support, the oil industry would never have grown to the size it is now.

However, taxation alone does not shift resources to efficient producers automatically. To encourage (fossil) energy efficiency, or innovation in energy creation, cap and trade is more effective. So the answer is: both. Use taxes to make investments and provide leadership the market could never provide, use a cap and trade system to encourage efficiency.

An additional policy to enhance market transparency could be the issuing of energy standards or labels. In the US, i believe you already have the LEED system for public buildings. Such a system should also apply to family homes, or even breakfast cereals. consumers can place more weight on energy efficiency through such a system, than through a system that measures everything only in dollars.

I hope that the energy transition can be done quick enough to put a stop to global warming. Even more so, i hope that the energy transition can be made before civilization comes to a grinding halt.

Right now, there is not a single thing, luxury or necessity, that has not been produced, stored or transported without using heaps of oil. When oil-shortages become a reality, the question is not if our economy will shrink, but how much. No matter what we invent for alternative energy supply, it will never be as easy and convenient as oil. The only improvement we can hope for is that our new sources will be less polluting than our old energy sources..

First, spend your resources where they will do the most KNOWN good. Cars are not a very good place to spend a lot of limited resources. Cars only produce about 8% of all the CO2 produced by man. Even if you took every car off the road, it probably would not make a really significant difference in global warming. We can cut half of that easily and quickly by just going to small diesels (Like Europe) and smaller vehicles, hybrids, etc. which take no new research and experimental resources.

Most of man’s CO2 comes from electrical and steam power for our homes and industry. All we need to cut this significantly is more Nuclear everywhere, and Solar / Wind Generation in locations where they can at least come close to breaking even. The Nuclear is the most important because it is reliable and can provide the 24/7 power reliability needed. Solar and Wind cannot.

This plan works whether or not you believe in AGW. We will be doing it to get off foreign oil primarily, but if AGW or Naturally occurring warming is happening and reducing CO2 will help, we get an added benefit.

While we are building Nuclear, we should be put all our research and development resources into improving Nuclear power, Solar, and Wind, as well as finding a replacement for Nuclear power (H2, Fusion, ???) in the future. At the same time we should be doing more research and study of Global Climate Change / Warming so we might someday really understand this very complex process. It is obvious we do not yet.

Lets start with what behaviours are needed.

People need to recognise that global warming is just one of the damaging outcomes of wasteful consumerism. Unless people change their behaviour rising fuel prices, widespread polution and global warming will cause enormous suffering. They need to recognise that simpler lifestyles are more fun and more sustainable. We need to recognise that global warming and environmental concerns are not in conflict. Economic development based upon wasteful use of resources is unsustainable and certain to lead to economic as well as social and environmental damage. On the other hand simpler lifestyles conserve resources and lead to health and wellbeing benefits.

Once people recognise these facts they will begin to demand policies that set our economies in the right direction. Instead of encouraging debt fuelled consumerism governments must encourage frugality and the development of sustainable economic activities. Carbon taxes can be used to reduce demand for fossil fuels and the revenue can be invested in sustainable energy generation and the aleviation of poverty. This later point is important because the gap between rich and poor will make change more difficult to achieve.

Governments must cease to measure their success in tems of Gross Domestic Product and should develop measures of wellbeing instead. It is far better to improve health and happiness rather than the volume of goods consumed. Economic activities that generate power sustainably or that conserve power should be encouraged and those that waste resources (such as aviation) should be discouraged. (At present aviation receives enormous tax concessions throughout the world with the consequence that it has grown enormously at the expense of other less wasteful industries such as dometic tourism).

Best wishes for a more sustainable future.

Source(s): 41 years working in the UK governement departments for food, agriculture and environment.

yeah, more taxes….thats exactly what we need. “If you don’t agree, tough.” That is the perfect approach.

Fossil fuel technologies well developed?!?!?! Do you know the average efficiency of combustion engines and other products that run on petrol? (It is sickening)

Edit:

Also, green jobs are thriving. In my major, we are being encouraged to take a senior level green chemistry class so we will be more adaptable to the changing environment.

I am “burying my head in the sand”? If you want to shovel more money into this, be my guest. Don’t force me to do the same, I already have to buy health care or be penalized.

Taxes.

And wot JSB said. Funnily, the change of attitude is taking hold in a few unlikely places including mainstream industry. Hope for us yet.

Cap and trade certainly is not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than burying your head in the sand and pretending there isn’t a problem.

Pretending Solar activity in the last 30 years has warmed Mars

Pretending Co2 isn’t a greenhouse gas

Pretending Scientists are all “out to get you”

Dana welcome back, I can’t help but wonder if your return is linked to the sudden inactivity of the ex top answerer, has he taken his bat ball and jelly crystals and gone home.

Man this forum is dead! And on Earth Hour no less!

Whassamatta Dana you losin’ followers or what? I guess your dogma didn’t have the staying power as that of Jeebus or MuBOMBed huh? That’s ok, you’ll still receive your reward in the Green afterlife, you just keep the faith brother!

We don’t need all that… We should make bio–diesel out of prisoners and the deceased. School children should be required to walk on power generating treadmills for at least 1 hour a day. We should send illegals back to their low carbon footprint homeland. We can cut emissions from China by manufacturing stuff in the US.