RE: Re: RE: Re: global warming talks failure
Hey I used to work at a law firm in DC that liked to chew up environmental legislation on behalf of a huge corporate client list no matter how mild the regs. would be. They scuttled quite a bit of the Clean Air Act rewrite. Their tenacity and militancy should not be underestimated; they won't fall for an incremental tightening strategy replete with periodic legislative review, they know a slippery slope when they see one. Remember the idiots who fought against continent wide biological census...they got lots of "friends". Better to build a base on REALLY angry citizens :-) Ian > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Dorman > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 12:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:5114] Re: RE: Re: global warming talks failure > > > If I understand this, you are frontloading the political hassle > by building the > progressive tightening of the standard into the initial > regulation. If the > political juice is there, that's always a good thing to do... > > Lisa & Ian Murray wrote: > > > If we set > > stringent targets that do as you say, how do we avoid the costs of > > litigating enforcement and the perpetuation of the greenwashing backlash > > against "command and control" bureaucrats. For the corps. litigating is > > usually cheaper than compliance, if it weren't, what would be > the point of > > the fines for non-compliance? > > > > Ian >
Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Ellen, Guess I agree with pretty much all you have to say. Yes, I agree that the pain would not be that great and the opposition has come strongly from certain industries that have been very focused on getting their message out. I also agree that the usual flaks coming out now for a carbon tax are just barking up the wrong tree, or the wrong coal mine or oil well, or whatever. Jamie Howitt was pushing it in the Washington Post, at least with an offset of a reduction of income taxes to be revenue neutral. But, unless one makes the income tax more progressive at the same time, raising carbon taxes and lowering income taxes will increase the regressivity of the tax system. As near as I can tell most of the US public would like to see something done about global warming. But the strength of that desire is not all that great and gets easily overwhelmed by the intensity of the focused opposition, a situation reminiscent of a number of issues out there (anybody for gun control???). However, ridiculous as it might be, in the current climate of somewhat higher gasoline prices, I see very little public support for any kind of a serious carbon tax, especially if it showed up as an increase in those touchy gasoline prices. Of course, most Americans are simply unaware of how cheap gasoline is here relative to most of the rest of the world. I understand that awareness of this lack of awareness is at least part of what lay behind the hard line taken by some of the European delegates at the Hague. Finally, the role of the Global Climate Coalition is something that really needs a lot more publicity. I know quite a few climatologists and I know that the Coalition and the industries that are part of it are doing a whole lot of funding of the research done by individual climatologists as well as of certain specific journals in climatology. Now, this is a very messy business because there really are controversies and disagreements among climatologists about various details of this issue. But, I know that some of them who are being publicly quoted as questioning global warming are not only being funded by the Coalition and its members, but actually know that the trend is to greater global warming. What they will say privately is that they disagree with the rate of increase in global temperature that is being forecast by the IPCC. Some of them have some credibility because some of their complaints have already proven true, e.g. the earlier failure of the IPCC model to include an oceanic uptake factor. But, the public comments of these folks generally do not exhibit their agreement that there really is global warming. All one hears is that they are "skeptics about global warming," not that they merely disagree about its likely scale. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Ellen Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 3:28 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5116] Re: global warming talks failure >Barkley - It is, of course, depressing how awful the >entire US political establishment has been on this issue. >But there is one thing I think we need to be clear on. >Emissions from highway transportation constitute >less than 20% of US CO2 emissions - and much of that >is from trucks, not passenger vehicles. SUVs are awful. >They are a symbol of everything that is wrong with >US environmental and transportation policy. But they >are not the major problem. I disagree that soccer moms >constitute the real opposiition to Kyoto. (Not that I'm >accusing you of saying this!) I know lots of SUV drivers >who really don't appreciate the environmental impact of >SUVs because NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT IT. Nobody >talks about it, because, until very recently, the Global >Climate Coalition came down like a ton of bricks on any >journalist who mentioned global warming, without >giving equal time to the "skeptic" position. When the >Kyoto protocol went before the Senate, who were the >Senators hearing from? The oil, coal, auto, electicity >industries. Not the public. > >Industry is changing its tune, but slowly, slowly. >Most emissions are from electricity generation (half of >which comes from burning coal) and industry. The Department >of Energy study and other studies I have seen propose a mix of policies -- >carbon trading permits for utilities and industry with >progressively more stringent caps; miniimum content standards for >renewable sources; efficiency requirements for buildings and >appliances; auto fuel efficiency standards, etc. The DoE also >presumed that subsidies and tax breaks now offered to >fossil fuel development would be redeployed to renewables. >These policies are opposed by the coal and oil lobbies, not >by the public. > >In today's NYtimes, Krugman writes that the
Re: Re: RE: Re: global warming talks failure
Peter, Actually we are back to the ultimate appeal of and argument for the tradeable permits scheme, that it may achieve a given level of emissions reduction at the least cost. That means there will be less political resistance to tightening emissions standards. The very nature of the debate and negotiations over the global warming issue have themselves been a reminder of this. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 3:10 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5114] Re: RE: Re: global warming talks failure >If I understand this, you are frontloading the political hassle by building the >progressive tightening of the standard into the initial regulation. If the >political juice is there, that's always a good thing to do... > >Lisa & Ian Murray wrote: > >> If we set >> stringent targets that do as you say, how do we avoid the costs of >> litigating enforcement and the perpetuation of the greenwashing backlash >> against "command and control" bureaucrats. For the corps. litigating is >> usually cheaper than compliance, if it weren't, what would be the point of >> the fines for non-compliance? >> >> Ian > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Maybe this is the time to vent an idea I've been carrying around... The Kyoto negotiations are an example of global quasi-governance processes that are proceeding fitfully but are absolutely essential to our future. I would add third world debt-reduction to this list, also global labor standards, global action against AIDS and other diseases, etc. Not surprisingly "our" governments are doing a terrible job. What alternative movements in the US and elsewhere could and should be doing is negotiating shadow agreements among themselves. I don't mean the wish lists and happy-talk statements of principles we usually content ourselves with, but the real, brass-tacks, concrete agreements the official negotiators should be formulating but aren't. These shadow agreements could be used to pressure official talks and also serve as political levers in our different countries to promote dissident politics. The new global society in the shell of the old... Peter "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > Shifting this back to the issue of more > interest to the list, the question is would a > mandated c&c system for dealing with global > warming work better than a marketable permits > scheme, presumably with reasonably accounted > for net emissions (in contrast to what the US was > at least initially proposing)? Well, maybe it would > have if anybody could have gotten the US to go > along with the large amount of cutbacks that this > would have entailed. I actually think that it could > be done, with less pain than many think. But, it > would take solid political support. As it is, it was > not just Trent Lott or Don Nickles or Phil Gramm > or Strom Thurmond that Clinton was kowtowing > to, but the entire US Senate including the likes > of Wellstone, Feingold, Boxer, and Kennedy. > The stories coming out of the Hague continue > to be very confusing. Initially I read that Voynet > supported the last minute proposed compromise. > Yesterday I read that she agreed with Germany's > Trittin in opposing it and has had a major blowup > with UK's Prescott over the whole business. > With regard to Trittin, it should be noted that the > EU is treated as a single entity for purposes of the > Kyoto Protocol. The EU is in a much easier position > to meet an emission reduction than the US because > of reduced emissions in the former GDR that happened > for similar reasons to the reduced emissions in Russia > and Ukraine and because of major improvements in > the energy generating industry in the UK. The situation > in Germany in particular puts a particular spin on Trittin's > position, who presumably will gain greenie political > points for scuttling a possible global agreement on this. > Barkey Rosser
Re: global warming talks failure
Barkley - It is, of course, depressing how awful the entire US political establishment has been on this issue. But there is one thing I think we need to be clear on. Emissions from highway transportation constitute less than 20% of US CO2 emissions - and much of that is from trucks, not passenger vehicles. SUVs are awful. They are a symbol of everything that is wrong with US environmental and transportation policy. But they are not the major problem. I disagree that soccer moms constitute the real opposiition to Kyoto. (Not that I'm accusing you of saying this!) I know lots of SUV drivers who really don't appreciate the environmental impact of SUVs because NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT IT. Nobody talks about it, because, until very recently, the Global Climate Coalition came down like a ton of bricks on any journalist who mentioned global warming, without giving equal time to the "skeptic" position. When the Kyoto protocol went before the Senate, who were the Senators hearing from? The oil, coal, auto, electicity industries. Not the public. Industry is changing its tune, but slowly, slowly. Most emissions are from electricity generation (half of which comes from burning coal) and industry. The Department of Energy study and other studies I have seen propose a mix of policies -- carbon trading permits for utilities and industry with progressively more stringent caps; miniimum content standards for renewable sources; efficiency requirements for buildings and appliances; auto fuel efficiency standards, etc. The DoE also presumed that subsidies and tax breaks now offered to fossil fuel development would be redeployed to renewables. These policies are opposed by the coal and oil lobbies, not by the public. In today's NYtimes, Krugman writes that the solution to GW is a carbon tax. In fact, nobody is seriously proposing this. Carbon taxes, besides being regressive, simply don't get the job done. Demand is not elastic and alternatives need to be made available. But alternatives will gradually take the profit out of owning a coal mine or an oil well. Ellen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Ellen, > But the US Senate by an unanimous resolution >demands that non-Annex I countries must share in >those reductions. Their absurd resolution also >demanded that there be "no harm to the US economy." > I agree that the pain of the initial reductions >would not be as great as many think it would be. It >may well be that the hidden ally here may yet be the >emerging corporate supporters. I suspect that the >positions of GM and Ford must reflect that they are >about to come out with hybrid SUV's. A serious >push without upsetting mall obsessions and soccer >moms would involve replacing most of the current >SUVs with hybrids. But Toyota has the edge on this >with its Prius for now, although that is not an SUV. >Barkley Rosser >
Re: RE: Re: global warming talks failure
If I understand this, you are frontloading the political hassle by building the progressive tightening of the standard into the initial regulation. If the political juice is there, that's always a good thing to do... Lisa & Ian Murray wrote: > If we set > stringent targets that do as you say, how do we avoid the costs of > litigating enforcement and the perpetuation of the greenwashing backlash > against "command and control" bureaucrats. For the corps. litigating is > usually cheaper than compliance, if it weren't, what would be the point of > the fines for non-compliance? > > Ian
Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Ellen, But the US Senate by an unanimous resolution demands that non-Annex I countries must share in those reductions. Their absurd resolution also demanded that there be "no harm to the US economy." I agree that the pain of the initial reductions would not be as great as many think it would be. It may well be that the hidden ally here may yet be the emerging corporate supporters. I suspect that the positions of GM and Ford must reflect that they are about to come out with hybrid SUV's. A serious push without upsetting mall obsessions and soccer moms would involve replacing most of the current SUVs with hybrids. But Toyota has the edge on this with its Prius for now, although that is not an SUV. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Ellen Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:41 AM Subject: [PEN-L:5093] Re: global warming talks failure >I have hesitated to involve myself in this conversation, >because I was still uncertain about what went on at >the Hague. What I now understand from people who >were there, is that the US negotiators arrived with the >proposal that 60 percent of the US emission reduction >called for under the Kyoto protocol would be met >by naturally occuring increases in vegetation and >forestry that are already set by existing law - in other >words, we promise to continue not to chop down trees in >the White Mountains and Adirondacks, and get credit for >creating a carbon "sink." Eventually, in the bargaining >that went on, this credit was wittled down to about >15 percent of the US comittment. But US negotiators, >in opening with such an outrageous gambit, did not >appreciate how badly they had pissed off the Greens. > >The thing that really galls me about this is that the >Clinton/Gore administration did this knowing full >well that this might be the last chance to reach a deal >for quite a while, if Bush takes the presidency. They >also did this despite a study from their own Department >of Energy, released just two weeks ago, showing that >the Kyoto Targets could easily be met, with little economic >disruption. Studies by the EPA and Tellus Institute have >said the same thing. > >The economic disruption will not come from the Kyoto >reductions (which would amount to about 20% below >current emission levels), but from the reductions needed >to actually avert catastrophic warming by mid-century. >For this, CO2 concentrations must be stabilized below >500 parts per million (they are now at 370 ppm). Stabilizing >atmospheric carbon at this level will require cuts in emissions >of 70 percent or more by the Annex 1 countries. Kyoto is just >a small step along this road - one that Clinton/Gore have declined >to take. > > Ellen Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
At 01:30 PM 11/29/00 -0500, you wrote: >Max, >Heck, I'll take both you and Peter, and >maybe even the irascible Devine One up >on that, :-). start pouring... Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Peter, You are probably right, although I shall note that with the marketable permits scheme, a firm has an incentive to go below the basic quota because it may get paid for doing so. In fact with the actually existing scheme in the US for SO2 the emissions have been lower than expected. Shifting this back to the issue of more interest to the list, the question is would a mandated c&c system for dealing with global warming work better than a marketable permits scheme, presumably with reasonably accounted for net emissions (in contrast to what the US was at least initially proposing)? Well, maybe it would have if anybody could have gotten the US to go along with the large amount of cutbacks that this would have entailed. I actually think that it could be done, with less pain than many think. But, it would take solid political support. As it is, it was not just Trent Lott or Don Nickles or Phil Gramm or Strom Thurmond that Clinton was kowtowing to, but the entire US Senate including the likes of Wellstone, Feingold, Boxer, and Kennedy. The stories coming out of the Hague continue to be very confusing. Initially I read that Voynet supported the last minute proposed compromise. Yesterday I read that she agreed with Germany's Trittin in opposing it and has had a major blowup with UK's Prescott over the whole business. With regard to Trittin, it should be noted that the EU is treated as a single entity for purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. The EU is in a much easier position to meet an emission reduction than the US because of reduced emissions in the former GDR that happened for similar reasons to the reduced emissions in Russia and Ukraine and because of major improvements in the energy generating industry in the UK. The situation in Germany in particular puts a particular spin on Trittin's position, who presumably will gain greenie political points for scuttling a possible global agreement on this. Barkey Rosser -Original Message- From: Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 7:54 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5070] Re: Re: global warming talks failure >My hunch is that no one else on pen-l cares about this other than you or I, >Barkley. We can take it up over a drink in New Orleans. Enough drinks and I'm >sure you'll see it my way. > >Peter > >"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > >> Peter, >> I think this is sort of a sideshow, but >> I still do not follow (or accept) your argument. >> The "excess" that a company sells is the amount >> that it is (or plans to be actually) below its >> allowable amount. Once it sells that it cannot >> go above its now lower allowable amount. >> Certainly the other firm can "overpollute" relative >> to its old allowable amount. But neither is supposed >> to go above their new allowable amounts which >> should sum to overall allowed amount. It is a >> ceiling. >>Now, you have introduced another wiggle >> here with the claim that firms are less likely to >> go over their allowable amounts in a c&c system >> than in a tradeable permits system. Why should >> that be? I do not see why. In both cases there >> is a maximum allowable amount, although that >> may change for a particular firm in the tradeable >> permits scheme. If firms face equal punishments >> under each scheme for going over their allowable >> amounts, why should they behave differently under >> the two schemes? >> Furthermore, why would firms be more likely >> to go under their allowable amount in a c&c scheme >> than in a tradeable permits scheme? After all, firms >> only sell excess they are reasonably certain they won't >> experience. In fact, they are likely to be below that. >> Finally, even if you can prove the argument, which >> maybe you can, that there will be more emissions >> with a tradeable permits scheme than with a strict >> quantity standard scheme (with the same aggregate >> emissions allowed), it remains the case that under >> both schemes it is illegal for any firm to go above >> its allowable limits however defined, but that it can >> certainly go below them. Thus, they are both ceilings >> and not floors, at least in principle, even if they are >> violated in practice, which is possible for both. >> Barkley Rosser >> -Original Message- >> From: Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 3:42 PM >> Subject: [PEN-L:5061] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure >> >> >"J. Barkley Ros
Re: RE: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Max, Heck, I'll take both you and Peter, and maybe even the irascible Devine One up on that, :-). Barkley -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 8:49 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5071] RE: Re: Re: global warming talks failure >One or two should do it. > >mbs > > >My hunch is that no one else on pen-l cares about this other than you or I, >Barkley. We can take it up over a drink in New Orleans. Enough drinks and >I'm sure you'll see it my way. >Peter > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Brad DeLong wrote: >Pray for cleaner technology and raise the CAFE standards! has praying ever done any good? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
>A lot of lefties want to blame evil corporations for global warming, >and while they're no angels, the real solution would mean profound >changes in everyday life for almost all of us. How do we get there? > >Doug Not by ignoring the problem. Not by having the Vice President show up at lots of technology photo-ops either... Pray for cleaner technology and raise the CAFE standards! Brad DeLong ** Wouldn't that be INVEST in cleaner technology and if the engineering class can't do it [it ain't gonna be easy by any means and there may be cases where simply throwing more $$ - as is the US way - won't help], accept that economic-cultural dislocation may be inexorable [taking some technologies off-line]. Non-dogmatically, I would strongly urge those who can to get a hold of Paul Ekins "Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability" [Routledge, 2000] and read Chapter 6 a few times to get an realistic sense of what needs to be done in terms of technological restructuring. "The long term goal should be to reduce the financial and governance role of the stock market with an eye towards an eventual elimination. Corporations should be placed increasingly under a combination of worker, community, customer, supplier, and public control. Of course, it's easy to say that in a sentence or two, but the actual task, technically and politically, would be difficult as hell." Pogo
Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
>Eugene Coyle wrote: > >>I agree with Barkley that this is a frightening and urgent problem. My >>take is that Gore and Clinton haven't had and don't have a serious >>intention of doing anything about it, posture as Gore will. > >Well, it'd require massive changes in U.S. life just to get back to >1990 emissions levels, and Kyoto required us to get something like >7% below that, right? Can you imagine any scenario under which a >U.S. politician would campaign for seriously reduced auto use, the >banning of SUVs, and massive re-urbanization? > >A lot of lefties want to blame evil corporations for global warming, >and while they're no angels, the real solution would mean profound >changes in everyday life for almost all of us. How do we get there? > >Doug Not by ignoring the problem. Not by having the Vice President show up at lots of technology photo-ops either... Pray for cleaner technology and raise the CAFE standards! Brad DeLong
Re: global warming talks failure
I have hesitated to involve myself in this conversation, because I was still uncertain about what went on at the Hague. What I now understand from people who were there, is that the US negotiators arrived with the proposal that 60 percent of the US emission reduction called for under the Kyoto protocol would be met by naturally occuring increases in vegetation and forestry that are already set by existing law - in other words, we promise to continue not to chop down trees in the White Mountains and Adirondacks, and get credit for creating a carbon "sink." Eventually, in the bargaining that went on, this credit was wittled down to about 15 percent of the US comittment. But US negotiators, in opening with such an outrageous gambit, did not appreciate how badly they had pissed off the Greens. The thing that really galls me about this is that the Clinton/Gore administration did this knowing full well that this might be the last chance to reach a deal for quite a while, if Bush takes the presidency. They also did this despite a study from their own Department of Energy, released just two weeks ago, showing that the Kyoto Targets could easily be met, with little economic disruption. Studies by the EPA and Tellus Institute have said the same thing. The economic disruption will not come from the Kyoto reductions (which would amount to about 20% below current emission levels), but from the reductions needed to actually avert catastrophic warming by mid-century. For this, CO2 concentrations must be stabilized below 500 parts per million (they are now at 370 ppm). Stabilizing atmospheric carbon at this level will require cuts in emissions of 70 percent or more by the Annex 1 countries. Kyoto is just a small step along this road - one that Clinton/Gore have declined to take. Ellen Frank
RE: Re: global warming talks failure
PD>> > The problem is that it transfers to the state the cost of > reducing the target. > At the margin, this is the same as the sort of "takings" > compensation the Right > demands and was passed by initiative in Oregon this fall. It is > as if polluters > had the right to pollute and we, the polluted, have the > obligation to bribe them > not to. ** The state always has the option of not buying. By default, they currently do have the right to pollute and indifference to the problem is incredibly path dependent. I mentioned my thoughts only in the context of the credit scheme, not it's many limitations. > > > Create a rule that only allows firms to sell to other firms that are > > lowering their ceilings too, just at a slower rate [or sell the > credits back > > to the state]. In short have the "master" rate set by the state > [as it buys > > the credits back] or by the firm that underpollutes the > fastest, that is, a > > rate lowering scheme set by the fastest innovator. > > > > Does this make sense or am I totally off base? > > > > Ian > > Is this any different from setting progressively more stringent > targets from > period to period? > > Peter *** If we could show that the two schemes are formally equivalent in terms of costs for achieving the goals then, to the extent the credit scheme appears more voluntaristic, polluters can keep their market mythology. If we set stringent targets that do as you say, how do we avoid the costs of litigating enforcement and the perpetuation of the greenwashing backlash against "command and control" bureaucrats. For the corps. litigating is usually cheaper than compliance, if it weren't, what would be the point of the fines for non-compliance? Ian
Re: global warming talks failure
The center of the scan is to go to a failed Ukranian or Russian business, which used to burn coal and buy their pollution rights. Or claim that a generator that uses natural gas is reducing CO2 by not using coal. Lisa & Ian Murray wrote: > Jr.>> > > Peter, > > Thanks for the reference. > > There is nothing stopping > > a firm that owns the right to emit a certain amount of a > > given pollutant to emit less. But it cannot emit more. > > Ceiling implies a maximum above which one cannot > > go. A floor is a minimum below which one cannot go. > > Tradeable emissions permits schemes are merely > > systems of allocating the pieces of a ceiling, an allowable > > maximum of emissions of the pollutant in question over > > the zone of the artificial market. > > Barkley Rosser > *** > What if, once a firm lowers it's "share" of the pollutant and then sells it > off to the state --allow the state to be a buyer -- rather than another > firm, the size of the pieces [number of credits available to buy and sell] > of the ceiling are lowered thus raising the price for those who need to buy > because they are remiss in attempting to lower their emissions? Each firm > would have the option of selling to another firm or the state. Over time the > total number of credits available diminishes, as does the height of the > ceiling. The cost of overpolluting rises over time and the profitability of > innovation could possibly increase too. > > Peter D.>>No, but under a tradeable system the underpolluting firm sells its > excess to > another firm that "overpollutes". In principle, if all opportunities for > profitable exchange are realized, aggregate pollution will not be below the > target. > > *** > > Create a rule that only allows firms to sell to other firms that are > lowering their ceilings too, just at a slower rate [or sell the credits back > to the state]. In short have the "master" rate set by the state [as it buys > the credits back] or by the firm that underpollutes the fastest, that is, a > rate lowering scheme set by the fastest innovator. > > Does this make sense or am I totally off base? > > Ian > > BTW went to a press conference in downtown Seattle [WTO anniversary and all > that] and heard a fisheries economist state that best estimates indicate > 20-25 years for the planet's open waters fisheries before utter collapse :-( -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: global warming talks failure
Lisa & Ian Murray wrote: > > What if, once a firm lowers it's "share" of the pollutant and then sells it > off to the state --allow the state to be a buyer -- rather than another > firm, the size of the pieces [number of credits available to buy and sell] > of the ceiling are lowered thus raising the price for those who need to buy > because they are remiss in attempting to lower their emissions? Each firm > would have the option of selling to another firm or the state. Over time the > total number of credits available diminishes, as does the height of the > ceiling. The cost of overpolluting rises over time and the profitability of > innovation could possibly increase too. The problem is that it transfers to the state the cost of reducing the target. At the margin, this is the same as the sort of "takings" compensation the Right demands and was passed by initiative in Oregon this fall. It is as if polluters had the right to pollute and we, the polluted, have the obligation to bribe them not to. > Create a rule that only allows firms to sell to other firms that are > lowering their ceilings too, just at a slower rate [or sell the credits back > to the state]. In short have the "master" rate set by the state [as it buys > the credits back] or by the firm that underpollutes the fastest, that is, a > rate lowering scheme set by the fastest innovator. > > Does this make sense or am I totally off base? > > Ian Is this any different from setting progressively more stringent targets from period to period? Peter
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Jr.>> > Peter, > Thanks for the reference. > There is nothing stopping > a firm that owns the right to emit a certain amount of a > given pollutant to emit less. But it cannot emit more. > Ceiling implies a maximum above which one cannot > go. A floor is a minimum below which one cannot go. > Tradeable emissions permits schemes are merely > systems of allocating the pieces of a ceiling, an allowable > maximum of emissions of the pollutant in question over > the zone of the artificial market. > Barkley Rosser *** What if, once a firm lowers it's "share" of the pollutant and then sells it off to the state --allow the state to be a buyer -- rather than another firm, the size of the pieces [number of credits available to buy and sell] of the ceiling are lowered thus raising the price for those who need to buy because they are remiss in attempting to lower their emissions? Each firm would have the option of selling to another firm or the state. Over time the total number of credits available diminishes, as does the height of the ceiling. The cost of overpolluting rises over time and the profitability of innovation could possibly increase too. Peter D.>>No, but under a tradeable system the underpolluting firm sells its excess to another firm that "overpollutes". In principle, if all opportunities for profitable exchange are realized, aggregate pollution will not be below the target. *** Create a rule that only allows firms to sell to other firms that are lowering their ceilings too, just at a slower rate [or sell the credits back to the state]. In short have the "master" rate set by the state [as it buys the credits back] or by the firm that underpollutes the fastest, that is, a rate lowering scheme set by the fastest innovator. Does this make sense or am I totally off base? Ian BTW went to a press conference in downtown Seattle [WTO anniversary and all that] and heard a fisheries economist state that best estimates indicate 20-25 years for the planet's open waters fisheries before utter collapse :-(
RE: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
One or two should do it. mbs My hunch is that no one else on pen-l cares about this other than you or I, Barkley. We can take it up over a drink in New Orleans. Enough drinks and I'm sure you'll see it my way. Peter
Re: Re: global warming talks failure
My hunch is that no one else on pen-l cares about this other than you or I, Barkley. We can take it up over a drink in New Orleans. Enough drinks and I'm sure you'll see it my way. Peter "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > Peter, > I think this is sort of a sideshow, but > I still do not follow (or accept) your argument. > The "excess" that a company sells is the amount > that it is (or plans to be actually) below its > allowable amount. Once it sells that it cannot > go above its now lower allowable amount. > Certainly the other firm can "overpollute" relative > to its old allowable amount. But neither is supposed > to go above their new allowable amounts which > should sum to overall allowed amount. It is a > ceiling. >Now, you have introduced another wiggle > here with the claim that firms are less likely to > go over their allowable amounts in a c&c system > than in a tradeable permits system. Why should > that be? I do not see why. In both cases there > is a maximum allowable amount, although that > may change for a particular firm in the tradeable > permits scheme. If firms face equal punishments > under each scheme for going over their allowable > amounts, why should they behave differently under > the two schemes? > Furthermore, why would firms be more likely > to go under their allowable amount in a c&c scheme > than in a tradeable permits scheme? After all, firms > only sell excess they are reasonably certain they won't > experience. In fact, they are likely to be below that. > Finally, even if you can prove the argument, which > maybe you can, that there will be more emissions > with a tradeable permits scheme than with a strict > quantity standard scheme (with the same aggregate > emissions allowed), it remains the case that under > both schemes it is illegal for any firm to go above > its allowable limits however defined, but that it can > certainly go below them. Thus, they are both ceilings > and not floors, at least in principle, even if they are > violated in practice, which is possible for both. > Barkley Rosser > -Original Message- > From: Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 3:42 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:5061] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure > > >"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > > > >> Peter, > >> Thanks for the reference. > >> There is nothing stopping > >> a firm that owns the right to emit a certain amount of a > >> given pollutant to emit less. > > > >No, but under a tradeable system the underpolluting firm sells its excess > to > >another firm that "overpollutes". In principle, if all opportunities for > >profitable exchange are realized, aggregate pollution will not be below the > >target. > > > >> But it cannot emit more. > > > >If the system is adhered to perfectly, which in general it won't be. This > is > >why I would regard the target as, effectively, a floor. It is also true > that > >there will be some pollution above allowable levels in a c&c system, but > these > >are typically offset by underpollution. To the extent that the c&c system > is > >enforced, it is effectively a ceiling. > > > >I'm not up on the latest in this field. Is there a general recognition of > this > >floor-ceiling business? > > > >Peter > > > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Peter, I think this is sort of a sideshow, but I still do not follow (or accept) your argument. The "excess" that a company sells is the amount that it is (or plans to be actually) below its allowable amount. Once it sells that it cannot go above its now lower allowable amount. Certainly the other firm can "overpollute" relative to its old allowable amount. But neither is supposed to go above their new allowable amounts which should sum to overall allowed amount. It is a ceiling. Now, you have introduced another wiggle here with the claim that firms are less likely to go over their allowable amounts in a c&c system than in a tradeable permits system. Why should that be? I do not see why. In both cases there is a maximum allowable amount, although that may change for a particular firm in the tradeable permits scheme. If firms face equal punishments under each scheme for going over their allowable amounts, why should they behave differently under the two schemes? Furthermore, why would firms be more likely to go under their allowable amount in a c&c scheme than in a tradeable permits scheme? After all, firms only sell excess they are reasonably certain they won't experience. In fact, they are likely to be below that. Finally, even if you can prove the argument, which maybe you can, that there will be more emissions with a tradeable permits scheme than with a strict quantity standard scheme (with the same aggregate emissions allowed), it remains the case that under both schemes it is illegal for any firm to go above its allowable limits however defined, but that it can certainly go below them. Thus, they are both ceilings and not floors, at least in principle, even if they are violated in practice, which is possible for both. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 3:42 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5061] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure >"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > >> Peter, >> Thanks for the reference. >> There is nothing stopping >> a firm that owns the right to emit a certain amount of a >> given pollutant to emit less. > >No, but under a tradeable system the underpolluting firm sells its excess to >another firm that "overpollutes". In principle, if all opportunities for >profitable exchange are realized, aggregate pollution will not be below the >target. > >> But it cannot emit more. > >If the system is adhered to perfectly, which in general it won't be. This is >why I would regard the target as, effectively, a floor. It is also true that >there will be some pollution above allowable levels in a c&c system, but these >are typically offset by underpollution. To the extent that the c&c system is >enforced, it is effectively a ceiling. > >I'm not up on the latest in this field. Is there a general recognition of this >floor-ceiling business? > >Peter > >
Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
From an offlist discussion with Lou Proyect I would say that the big opening for Marxism here, aside from the general critique of profit-oriented firms driving things, is for how one determines the overall level of emissions. Although it was done through an international negotiation, good input from a global planner would sure be useful. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:33 AM Subject: [PEN-L:5048] Re: Re: global warming talks failure >G'day Paul, > >About Jordan Wheeler's column, "Until environment affects profits, it won't >be fixed" ... > >Beaut stuff, but problematic at a very profound level, I reckon. I think >people of Marxian bent inherit from Das Kapital and its clerics an >unconsciously impotent view of the world, by which I mean a rather >structuralist view in which the subject is inexorable capital. As this >dimension is precisely what is missing in latter day economics, more >strength to its eye - but Marx's materialist conception of history won't >hear of such a view as exhaustive analysis of our world. Das Kapital was >just an enormous but partial expression of that! > >There is always already room for agency. Capitalism may be in charge, but >its rule can never be complete. Even if we can't rid ourselves of its >remorseless blind charge, we can fuck with it a little. Sure, capitalism >expressed itself most cogently at The Hague last week, but even that sad >moment (and no contribution to its sadness was more shameful than that >played by the Australian government) is productive of contradictions. >Popular opposition makes differences, and capital's base logic is >continually confounded and thwarted by mass dissent. History is choc-a-bloc >full of it! > >Sure, capital fixes (or capitalists try to fix) what its moment determines >it should fix. Profits and shareholder value are big determinants of that, >but we must never submit to the idea they are ever entirely determinant. >It's all very well to keep our eyes on the stars, but cleaning the gutter in >which we find ourselves is important, too. Otherwise, there's a good chance >we soil it beyond tolerance before we get a chance at the pavement ... > >Tipsily and bed-bound, >Rob. > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > Peter, > Thanks for the reference. > There is nothing stopping > a firm that owns the right to emit a certain amount of a > given pollutant to emit less. No, but under a tradeable system the underpolluting firm sells its excess to another firm that "overpollutes". In principle, if all opportunities for profitable exchange are realized, aggregate pollution will not be below the target. > But it cannot emit more. If the system is adhered to perfectly, which in general it won't be. This is why I would regard the target as, effectively, a floor. It is also true that there will be some pollution above allowable levels in a c&c system, but these are typically offset by underpollution. To the extent that the c&c system is enforced, it is effectively a ceiling. I'm not up on the latest in this field. Is there a general recognition of this floor-ceiling business? Peter
Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Paul, Besides some companies like DuPont that figure they can make money in the anti-pollution biz, one major industry that is really pushing doing something about global warming is the insurance industry. They are scared blankety blank about the impact on properties due to rising ocean levels. Talk about catastrophic insurance! Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 27, 2000 9:07 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5032] Re: global warming talks failure >From a column by Jordan Wheeler, a Cree Indian columnist with the Winnipeg Free Press, November 26, 2000. "Until environment affects profits, it won't be fixed" When I was a kid I knew an old woman who remembered life in the late 1800s. She once sat on the prairie with her grandmother as a buffalo heard roamed by. The herd was thick and it moved over the low, rolling hills like a vst blanket. Her grandother told her to look at this closely because it would be the last time she would ever see it. Within a couple of years, the buffalo were gone. The buffalo were destroyed to wipe out the food source of the Plains Indians. With their food (and clothing and shelter) source gone, it was easier to confine the Indians to reserves, thus opening up the land for settlers to cut the earth with plows and for miners to slice the moutains apart and dig for minerals. It was about economics. It was about money. It was about profit. Because of profit, the land changed -- money vs. the environment. . . . . The environment won't become an issue until big business sees its destruction cut into their profits. To ponder how that already manifests itself and what lies down the road is frightening. Polar ice chunks are melting; oxygen generators (known as forests) are dwindling (in Canada just as quickly as in Brazil); our fresh water supply is pretty much gone; toxins are are present and growing in the entire, global ecosystem, the ozone thins, the globe warms. No wonder we're in denial. My fear is that big business won't get it until tens or hundreds of millions die That, of course, will mean fewer consumers. Big business serves itself and politicians are at their beck and call. Tougher environmental regulations won't be legislated or enfoced until it becomes and economic necessity. So, if the environment is you main concern, it doesn't really matter who wins this [Canadian] election. Money remains the going concern at the expense of everything else. (full article not available on the Free Press Website.) Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I find it curious that there is nearly zero > discussion of what is to me the biggest news > event of the moment, the failure of the global > warming talks in The Hague. Michael P. and > I have batted it about a bit, but that has been it. > Part of it may be that it never had much > publicity in the first place. The endless wranglings > in Florida and the ongoing killings in Palestine > have dominated the front pages, while (at least > in the Washington Post), the global warming talks > were relegated to the business section, although > collapse of the talks did make the front page, > lower half only. > Another aspect is that the details of the positions > taken in the talks seem to be very murky, as the > discussion between me and Michael P. suggests. > We know that the US wanted to count forests and > fields as carbon sinks, but whether this was based > on some not unreasonable measure of counting > increases in those sinks against increases in emissions > or some totally ridiculous proposal to simply take > existing sinks and count them as offsets against > increases in emissions, frankly I have not been able > to figure out. > Again, I am not against some kind of market > mechanism for allocating the emission reductions, as > long as it is reasonable and does not include nonsense > like the US claiming credit for reductions in Russia and > Ukraine due to their industrial depressions after paying > them some money (which will probably end up in Swiss > bank accounts anyway, if not in the pocket of Andrei > Shleifer's wife). > I should confess that my lack of > opposition to market mechanisms may reflect the fact > that I was involved in setting up the very first such mechanism > ever put in place anywhere in the world. That was in Wisconsin > in the mid-1970s on the Fox River for BOD, where there are > a lot of pulp and paper mills. Without the mechanism there > would have been a lot of layoffs in the industry. Indeed, I have > yet to see anybody offer a critique of
Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Doug, This is one reason why I am in favor of various "flexible mechanisms" including a reasonably structured market mechanism. This is indeed a global problem and the issue is getting global emissions down. Therefore I have no problem with, for example, the US paying other countries to reduce their emissions. I would like to see the US reduce its emissions, but I fear that it is extremely unrealistic to see the US making the cuts to get where it is supposed to go on its own. Just won't happen (soccer moms won't vote for it, not mention West Virginia coal miners and Missouri autoworkers and Ohio steelworkers). But, clearly the US will have to make some cuts, and probably big enough ones to be unpleasant. I might even be willing to go along with this farcical bit of the US paying Russia and Ukraine for their offsets if that would bring about action that the US would participate in. But I fully agree that this ludicrous effort to claim existing US carbon sinks as offsets is, well, ludicrous. Again, the reports suggest that Clinton was backing off that at The Hague, but I don't think we have the answer on what really happened there yet. But, make no mistake, this is a lot more serious than most stuff going on out there. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 27, 2000 8:24 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5030] Re: Re: global warming talks failure >Eugene Coyle wrote: > >>I agree with Barkley that this is a frightening and urgent problem. My >>take is that Gore and Clinton haven't had and don't have a serious >>intention of doing anything about it, posture as Gore will. > >Well, it'd require massive changes in U.S. life just to get back to >1990 emissions levels, and Kyoto required us to get something like 7% >below that, right? Can you imagine any scenario under which a U.S. >politician would campaign for seriously reduced auto use, the banning >of SUVs, and massive re-urbanization? > >A lot of lefties want to blame evil corporations for global warming, >and while they're no angels, the real solution would mean profound >changes in everyday life for almost all of us. How do we get there? > >Doug > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Peter, Thanks for the reference. There is nothing stopping a firm that owns the right to emit a certain amount of a given pollutant to emit less. But it cannot emit more. Ceiling implies a maximum above which one cannot go. A floor is a minimum below which one cannot go. Tradeable emissions permits schemes are merely systems of allocating the pieces of a ceiling, an allowable maximum of emissions of the pollutant in question over the zone of the artificial market. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 27, 2000 6:17 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5026] Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure >Under traditional regulation, each polluter is supposed to limit pollution to >some specified level. Some may find it feasible to cut pollution even more, >so that the overall target (permitted pollution level times number of >activities) serves as a ceiling. Under tradeable permits, all such gaps >disappear (if the market functions as planned), so the actual pollution >cannot be less than the target -- the target is a floor. > >I can't recall the history of the Japanese coastal management system; my >reference is: > >David Fluharty, "The Chrysanthemum and the Coast: Management of Coastal Areas >in Japan" (Coastal Zone Management Journal, 1984, 12[1]: 1-17) > >Peter > >"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > >> Peter, >> No major disagreements with any of this. >> One point is that in the usual emissions trading >> schemes they are ceilings, not floors. The whole point >> is to have aggregate emissions not exceed some level. >> Who gets to do the emitting that adds up to that is then >> decided by trading among the relevant parties. Nobody >> is supposed to go above their allowable amounts, >> once those are determined. >>Your caveats are all reasonable, and I agree that >> Eban Goodstein's discussion is reasonable and thoughtful. >>I knew that the Japanese have some fairly successful >> cooperative coastal management schemes (despite their >> rapacious attitude towards fisheries outside their own waters). >> I did not know that these involved market trading mechanisms. >> When were these initially implemented? >> I also would have preferred to see Clinton make some >> kind of an agreement and then let the Congress shoot it >> down. The current situation is apalling. This is truly serious >> stuff and something needs to be done about it. I am holding >> my nose more than my breath at the prospect of what Texas >> Oil Man Bush will do, although, who knows? >> Barkley Rosser > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Jim Devine wrote: > Mike Lebowitz's book, BEYOND CAPITAL, deals with these issues of Marx's > deterministic vision. While they have somewhat different agendas, and clash on some issues, Wood, Foster, and Harvey are all very good on the mixture of deterministic and non-deterministic elements in Marx's thought. Carrol
global warming talks failure
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/28/00 11:48AM >>> Mike Lebowitz's book, BEYOND CAPITAL, deals with these issues of Marx's deterministic vision. In a nutshell, Marx deliberately minimized the role of the self-organization working class in CAPITAL, in order to focus on the contradictory dynamics of capital, which create conditions in which working-class resistance is encouraged and allowed to succeed. It's as if Hegel had written about the Master without the Servant playing an active role, since it leaves much that is important out of our picture of capitalism. Mike quotes a lot from Marx's other writings in order to develop a sketch of a "political economy of the working class" that complements Marx's "political economy of capital." Of course, it can also be seen in such summary analyses of Marx's political writings as Hal Draper's KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION. I should note, as I often do, that even Marx's political economy of capital (his analysis of its contradictory dynamics) is quite incomplete. CB: I agree with Jim D. here, and I think it is important to think of _Capital_ in terms of the emphasis on capitalists or workers as subjects. I would say that upon doing this we do find the working class subject cunningly and in hidden ways in _Capital_. For example, the capitalist does not automatically or self-determinedly pay the workers the full value of their labor-power, as is a basic assumption in the models in _Capital_ . This level of pay only results from working class struggle and victories. Left to their own self-determination or subjectivity , individual capitalists would create various forms of oppressed or super-exploited labor, such as when capitalism had large sectors of slavery, or today with oppressed colonial labor, laborers not paid the full value of their labor power. Also, overall, since mastery of necessity or objective conditions is the way to freedom , freedom of the working class subject in this case, the key to freeing the working class as subject is for the working class to become conscious of and master/mistresss of the science of the capitalist subject , for the capitalist as subject creates the objective social conditions ,necessities, which the working class potential subject must master in order to be a realized subject. Also, we might take the discussion of the fetishism of commodities as a suggestion that negating the commodity fetishism of workers as a critical task for realizing their subjectivity.
Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Mike Lebowitz's book, BEYOND CAPITAL, deals with these issues of Marx's deterministic vision. In a nutshell, Marx deliberately minimized the role of the self-organization working class in CAPITAL, in order to focus on the contradictory dynamics of capital, which create conditions in which working-class resistance is encouraged and allowed to succeed. It's as if Hegel had written about the Master without the Servant playing an active role, since it leaves much that is important out of our picture of capitalism. Mike quotes a lot from Marx's other writings in order to develop a sketch of a "political economy of the working class" that complements Marx's "political economy of capital." Of course, it can also be seen in such summary analyses of Marx's political writings as Hal Draper's KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION. I should note, as I often do, that even Marx's political economy of capital (his analysis of its contradictory dynamics) is quite incomplete. At 03:29 AM 11/29/00 +1000, you wrote: >G'day Paul, > >About Jordan Wheeler's column, "Until environment affects profits, it won't >be fixed" ... > >Beaut stuff, but problematic at a very profound level, I reckon. I think >people of Marxian bent inherit from Das Kapital and its clerics an >unconsciously impotent view of the world, by which I mean a rather >structuralist view in which the subject is inexorable capital. As this >dimension is precisely what is missing in latter day economics, more >strength to its eye - but Marx's materialist conception of history won't >hear of such a view as exhaustive analysis of our world. Das Kapital was >just an enormous but partial expression of that! > >There is always already room for agency. Capitalism may be in charge, but >its rule can never be complete. Even if we can't rid ourselves of its >remorseless blind charge, we can fuck with it a little. Sure, capitalism >expressed itself most cogently at The Hague last week, but even that sad >moment (and no contribution to its sadness was more shameful than that >played by the Australian government) is productive of contradictions. >Popular opposition makes differences, and capital's base logic is >continually confounded and thwarted by mass dissent. History is choc-a-bloc >full of it! > >Sure, capital fixes (or capitalists try to fix) what its moment determines >it should fix. Profits and shareholder value are big determinants of that, >but we must never submit to the idea they are ever entirely determinant. >It's all very well to keep our eyes on the stars, but cleaning the gutter in >which we find ourselves is important, too. Otherwise, there's a good chance >we soil it beyond tolerance before we get a chance at the pavement ... > >Tipsily and bed-bound, >Rob. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: global warming talks failure
G'day Paul, About Jordan Wheeler's column, "Until environment affects profits, it won't be fixed" ... Beaut stuff, but problematic at a very profound level, I reckon. I think people of Marxian bent inherit from Das Kapital and its clerics an unconsciously impotent view of the world, by which I mean a rather structuralist view in which the subject is inexorable capital. As this dimension is precisely what is missing in latter day economics, more strength to its eye - but Marx's materialist conception of history won't hear of such a view as exhaustive analysis of our world. Das Kapital was just an enormous but partial expression of that! There is always already room for agency. Capitalism may be in charge, but its rule can never be complete. Even if we can't rid ourselves of its remorseless blind charge, we can fuck with it a little. Sure, capitalism expressed itself most cogently at The Hague last week, but even that sad moment (and no contribution to its sadness was more shameful than that played by the Australian government) is productive of contradictions. Popular opposition makes differences, and capital's base logic is continually confounded and thwarted by mass dissent. History is choc-a-bloc full of it! Sure, capital fixes (or capitalists try to fix) what its moment determines it should fix. Profits and shareholder value are big determinants of that, but we must never submit to the idea they are ever entirely determinant. It's all very well to keep our eyes on the stars, but cleaning the gutter in which we find ourselves is important, too. Otherwise, there's a good chance we soil it beyond tolerance before we get a chance at the pavement ... Tipsily and bed-bound, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
G'day Doug, >Louis Proyect wrote: > >>Actually most people value peace and health more than shopping at the malls >>and cancer. That is the reason drug use and prozac is so widespread in the >>USA. Beneath the "good life" there is a profound feeling of despair. > >...but which can't get articulated as despair. I'd love a thread on what it could, or is being, articulated as, Doug! There's a radical nostalgia (radical insofar as the past is being made up rather than revisited) for a start. And the components with which they choose to fashion this past speak fairly eloquently, do they not? Only the lonely (dum dum dum dumdedo dah ...) would so bang on about community. Only the exhausted, for a slow-down. Only the rational aquisitor, for mutual trust. Only the efficiently home-drugged for the pub down the road. Only the corporate-institutionally marginalised for local institutions in which one could have a hand. Only the accumulation- or status-hungry for children (and I very deliberately include majorities on both sides of the sexual divide). Only the disillusioned for the Simpsons. Only the suits, for the messy loud colours that suddenly fill MTV clips and ads. Only the sex taker, for the by-the-numbers love makers Hollywood conjures in all those tedious 'romantic comedies'. Only the mass-culture victims of Spice Girls and Back Street Boys could put the Beatles back at the top of the charts. Only those at the right end of a permanent meaningless state of war, for the righteous carnage of Private Ryan. And only the meaning-deprived could laugh at Seinfeld yet miss Sid Caesar. Shit, only the cynical could yearn for mere scepticism. Sounds like articulated despair from here ... >If I didn't think that your first sentence was fundamentally right, I wouldn't be a socialist. >(I'll disagree on cancer - the reason ca's more prevalent >is that people live longer, and capitalism has a lot to do with why >people live longer.) Right as far as it goes, but a western/northern-centric perception, I suspect. >But people formed in a society of shopping malls >are attached to it in complicated ways that are hard to undo. (And >lots of people who don't have malls want them.) We have to be careful here, Doug. I am most attached to and needful of cigarettes. I wasn't born with that, and it ain't good for me. Arguments that I live in a situation where tobacco constitutes a valid mode of self-medication are hard to reject, but that speaks to the radical scope of the problem. Which is that I need to smoke, and shouldn't need to smoke, and shouldn't smoke. >And besides, shopping itself isn't evil, nor is wanting more things. Depends on what you have, and why you want it. And whether you could possibly gain as much gratification from the having of the thing when the thrill of aquisition is gone. >Most people don't feel the mall despair you do. They feel versions of it. If the mall were convincingly associated with the their phobic objects, they might well feel such despair. Some miss their shopkeepers not knowing their names. Some miss a life that didn't depend on credit limits. Some miss casual meetings on the high street. Some miss finding their toddlers within minutes of losing them. Some miss finding their cars within days of leaving them. Some miss walking to the place they do their shopping and socialising. And some just miss owning the space between the shops. >So how do you change their minds? Well, accumulated experience is doing some of the job, I reckon. I know plenty of people who hate malls. But not as much as I do. Cheers, Rob.
Re: Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Louis Proyect wrote: >Actually most people value peace and health more than shopping at the malls >and cancer. That is the reason drug use and prozac is so widespread in the >USA. Beneath the "good life" there is a profound feeling of despair. ...but which can't get articulated as despair. If I didn't think that your first sentence was fundamentally right, I wouldn't be a socialist. (I'll disagree on cancer - the reason ca's more prevalent is that people live longer, and capitalism has a lot to do with why people live longer.) But people formed in a society of shopping malls are attached to it in complicated ways that are hard to undo. (And lots of people who don't have malls want them.) And besides, shopping itself isn't evil, nor is wanting more things. Most people don't feel the mall despair you do. So how do you change their minds? Doug
Re: global warming talks failure
>From a column by Jordan Wheeler, a Cree Indian columnist with the Winnipeg Free Press, November 26, 2000. "Until environment affects profits, it won't be fixed" When I was a kid I knew an old woman who remembered life in the late 1800s. She once sat on the prairie with her grandmother as a buffalo heard roamed by. The herd was thick and it moved over the low, rolling hills like a vst blanket. Her grandother told her to look at this closely because it would be the last time she would ever see it. Within a couple of years, the buffalo were gone. The buffalo were destroyed to wipe out the food source of the Plains Indians. With their food (and clothing and shelter) source gone, it was easier to confine the Indians to reserves, thus opening up the land for settlers to cut the earth with plows and for miners to slice the moutains apart and dig for minerals. It was about economics. It was about money. It was about profit. Because of profit, the land changed -- money vs. the environment. . . . . The environment won't become an issue until big business sees its destruction cut into their profits. To ponder how that already manifests itself and what lies down the road is frightening. Polar ice chunks are melting; oxygen generators (known as forests) are dwindling (in Canada just as quickly as in Brazil); our fresh water supply is pretty much gone; toxins are are present and growing in the entire, global ecosystem, the ozone thins, the globe warms. No wonder we're in denial. My fear is that big business won't get it until tens or hundreds of millions die That, of course, will mean fewer consumers. Big business serves itself and politicians are at their beck and call. Tougher environmental regulations won't be legislated or enfoced until it becomes and economic necessity. So, if the environment is you main concern, it doesn't really matter who wins this [Canadian] election. Money remains the going concern at the expense of everything else. (full article not available on the Free Press Website.) Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I find it curious that there is nearly zero > discussion of what is to me the biggest news > event of the moment, the failure of the global > warming talks in The Hague. Michael P. and > I have batted it about a bit, but that has been it. > Part of it may be that it never had much > publicity in the first place. The endless wranglings > in Florida and the ongoing killings in Palestine > have dominated the front pages, while (at least > in the Washington Post), the global warming talks > were relegated to the business section, although > collapse of the talks did make the front page, > lower half only. > Another aspect is that the details of the positions > taken in the talks seem to be very murky, as the > discussion between me and Michael P. suggests. > We know that the US wanted to count forests and > fields as carbon sinks, but whether this was based > on some not unreasonable measure of counting > increases in those sinks against increases in emissions > or some totally ridiculous proposal to simply take > existing sinks and count them as offsets against > increases in emissions, frankly I have not been able > to figure out. > Again, I am not against some kind of market > mechanism for allocating the emission reductions, as > long as it is reasonable and does not include nonsense > like the US claiming credit for reductions in Russia and > Ukraine due to their industrial depressions after paying > them some money (which will probably end up in Swiss > bank accounts anyway, if not in the pocket of Andrei > Shleifer's wife). > I should confess that my lack of > opposition to market mechanisms may reflect the fact > that I was involved in setting up the very first such mechanism > ever put in place anywhere in the world. That was in Wisconsin > in the mid-1970s on the Fox River for BOD, where there are > a lot of pulp and paper mills. Without the mechanism there > would have been a lot of layoffs in the industry. Indeed, I have > yet to see anybody offer a critique of, for example, the SO2 > scheme now in place in the US. Has worked better than > forecast, although market schemes do have to be carefully > constructed and can be messed up by monopoly power and > other difficulties. But, if properly set up, can achieve targeted > reductions for the least cost (and fewest layoffs). These > schemes are established by governments and ultimately > rely on emission levels established by government. > Anyway, back to The Hague talks failure. > As near as I can make out from reading the papers, it > appears that there was a last minute negotiation in which > Clinton offered to pull back somewhat from the US demands > on the carbon sink
Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
>A lot of lefties want to blame evil corporations for global warming, >and while they're no angels, the real solution would mean profound >changes in everyday life for almost all of us. How do we get there? > >Doug Actually most people value peace and health more than shopping at the malls and cancer. That is the reason drug use and prozac is so widespread in the USA. Beneath the "good life" there is a profound feeling of despair. If people had a choice between knowing that every person on the planet could live a decent life and sacrificing some of the junk that characterizes late capitalist society, they'd opt for the former. That was one of the explanations for the "hippy" phenomenon which was before your time, Doug. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Eugene Coyle wrote: >I agree with Barkley that this is a frightening and urgent problem. My >take is that Gore and Clinton haven't had and don't have a serious >intention of doing anything about it, posture as Gore will. Well, it'd require massive changes in U.S. life just to get back to 1990 emissions levels, and Kyoto required us to get something like 7% below that, right? Can you imagine any scenario under which a U.S. politician would campaign for seriously reduced auto use, the banning of SUVs, and massive re-urbanization? A lot of lefties want to blame evil corporations for global warming, and while they're no angels, the real solution would mean profound changes in everyday life for almost all of us. How do we get there? Doug
Re: global warming talks failure
There are a number of ways that there is a positive feedback from global temperature increases. "Positive" here is like getting a positive result on your HIV test. The most ominous of these multiple feedback possibilities, to me, is the melting of the permafrost. Permafrost is a carbon sink, and as it melts releases carbon. So warming melts the permafrost and that causes warming. (Duh, that's what a feedback mechanism is.) My recollection is that there are seven of these large feedback possibilities, though maybe five is the right number. I agree with Barkley that this is a frightening and urgent problem. My take is that Gore and Clinton haven't had and don't have a serious intention of doing anything about it, posture as Gore will. Gene Coyle "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > It might be just worth noting the big nonlinearity > in the system that I do not think is taken account of > in the big IPCC model. That model has gone through > a lot of revisions, some of them a few years ago leading > to a lowering of the forecast of temperature increase. > That one was due to adding in the effect of oceanic > uptake of CO2. Most recently, as most have heard, > the revisions have pushed the forecasts back upward. > The big unmodeled nonlinearity is due to albedo, > reflectiveness. There is a positive feedback effect due > to the expansion or contraction of icecaps and glaciers. > When it cools they expand increasing the reflectivity and > further cooling. The opposite happens during warming, > as now. The upshot is that very large changes in global > temperature can happen in very short periods of time. > Most studies indicate that the temperature changes of > going into or out of ice ages were over very short periods > of time in geological time, e.g. about a century or so. > Barkley Rosser
global warming talks failure
It might be just worth noting the big nonlinearity in the system that I do not think is taken account of in the big IPCC model. That model has gone through a lot of revisions, some of them a few years ago leading to a lowering of the forecast of temperature increase. That one was due to adding in the effect of oceanic uptake of CO2. Most recently, as most have heard, the revisions have pushed the forecasts back upward. The big unmodeled nonlinearity is due to albedo, reflectiveness. There is a positive feedback effect due to the expansion or contraction of icecaps and glaciers. When it cools they expand increasing the reflectivity and further cooling. The opposite happens during warming, as now. The upshot is that very large changes in global temperature can happen in very short periods of time. Most studies indicate that the temperature changes of going into or out of ice ages were over very short periods of time in geological time, e.g. about a century or so. Barkley Rosser
Re: Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Under traditional regulation, each polluter is supposed to limit pollution to some specified level. Some may find it feasible to cut pollution even more, so that the overall target (permitted pollution level times number of activities) serves as a ceiling. Under tradeable permits, all such gaps disappear (if the market functions as planned), so the actual pollution cannot be less than the target -- the target is a floor. I can't recall the history of the Japanese coastal management system; my reference is: David Fluharty, "The Chrysanthemum and the Coast: Management of Coastal Areas in Japan" (Coastal Zone Management Journal, 1984, 12[1]: 1-17) Peter "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > Peter, > No major disagreements with any of this. > One point is that in the usual emissions trading > schemes they are ceilings, not floors. The whole point > is to have aggregate emissions not exceed some level. > Who gets to do the emitting that adds up to that is then > decided by trading among the relevant parties. Nobody > is supposed to go above their allowable amounts, > once those are determined. >Your caveats are all reasonable, and I agree that > Eban Goodstein's discussion is reasonable and thoughtful. >I knew that the Japanese have some fairly successful > cooperative coastal management schemes (despite their > rapacious attitude towards fisheries outside their own waters). > I did not know that these involved market trading mechanisms. > When were these initially implemented? > I also would have preferred to see Clinton make some > kind of an agreement and then let the Congress shoot it > down. The current situation is apalling. This is truly serious > stuff and something needs to be done about it. I am holding > my nose more than my breath at the prospect of what Texas > Oil Man Bush will do, although, who knows? > Barkley Rosser
Re: Re: global warming talks failure
Peter, No major disagreements with any of this. One point is that in the usual emissions trading schemes they are ceilings, not floors. The whole point is to have aggregate emissions not exceed some level. Who gets to do the emitting that adds up to that is then decided by trading among the relevant parties. Nobody is supposed to go above their allowable amounts, once those are determined. Your caveats are all reasonable, and I agree that Eban Goodstein's discussion is reasonable and thoughtful. I knew that the Japanese have some fairly successful cooperative coastal management schemes (despite their rapacious attitude towards fisheries outside their own waters). I did not know that these involved market trading mechanisms. When were these initially implemented? I also would have preferred to see Clinton make some kind of an agreement and then let the Congress shoot it down. The current situation is apalling. This is truly serious stuff and something needs to be done about it. I am holding my nose more than my breath at the prospect of what Texas Oil Man Bush will do, although, who knows? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 27, 2000 4:36 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5021] Re: global warming talks failure >1. My understanding is that the US did indeed demand that it be given >credit for existing forests as carbon sinks. This is truly scandalous. > >2. The first market-based system I am aware of is the Japanese coastal >management regime, in which polluters must pay fishing cooperatives for >the right to pollute estuaries. It seems to work pretty well, all >considered. In general, market mechanisms can be OK, providing (1) >emissions can be measured accurately and at low cost, (2) emission >targets are lowered in recognition of the fact that under trading >systems they are floors and not ceilings, (3) there aren't significant >locational impacts, interaction effects or other nonlinearities, and (4) >they don't impede the introduction of greener technology. The last is >complicated, because markets do provide steady financial pressure for >innovation (which fixed emission rules do not), but they limit the other >types of leverage that can be used for technology forcing. Eban >Goodstein's textbook has a nice chapter on this issue. > >3. From a political standpoint, it seems that Clinton has caved in to >the congress once more without a battle. He wanted an agreement he >could win ratification on and came up empty-handed. Much better would >have been a good-faith effort to negotiate a real agreement, and then >let congress reject it at its own peril. There are hefty majorities in >this country for strong action to head off climate change: this is a >political battle the Democrats have only to fight in order to win. (As >Barkley points out, the business community is split, which means they >wouldn't be able to stand in the way.) Clinton's fear of conflict (with >Republicans) is simply pathological. > >Peter > >"J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > >> I find it curious that there is nearly zero >> discussion of what is to me the biggest news >> event of the moment, the failure of the global >> warming talks in The Hague. Michael P. and >> I have batted it about a bit, but that has been it. >> Part of it may be that it never had much >> publicity in the first place. The endless wranglings >> in Florida and the ongoing killings in Palestine >> have dominated the front pages, while (at least >> in the Washington Post), the global warming talks >> were relegated to the business section, although >> collapse of the talks did make the front page, >> lower half only. >> Another aspect is that the details of the positions >> taken in the talks seem to be very murky, as the >> discussion between me and Michael P. suggests. >> We know that the US wanted to count forests and >> fields as carbon sinks, but whether this was based >> on some not unreasonable measure of counting >> increases in those sinks against increases in emissions >> or some totally ridiculous proposal to simply take >> existing sinks and count them as offsets against >> increases in emissions, frankly I have not been able >> to figure out. >> Again, I am not against some kind of market >> mechanism for allocating the emission reductions, as >> long as it is reasonable and does not include nonsense >> like the US claiming credit for reductions in Russia and >> Ukraine due to their industrial depressions after paying >> them some money (which will probably end up in
Re: RE: global warming talks failure
Ian, Well, there is no simple answer to this. The outcome of the market mechanism is to simply allocate across countries who has to cut back and by how much their emissions. Thus, what really matters in terms of responses depends on the methods nations use to achieve those emissions cutbacks. Do they lead to what you want or not? This is quite independent of the mechanism by which each country's emissions is determined. It also probably has to do with the aggregate amount of emissions reductions. For that such issues as whether or not the US can count existing carbon sinks as offsets or not become significant. Clearly, by whatever method, the larger the emissions cutbacks mandated (and accepted) overall, the more incentives there will be to do something serious. BTW, for those who are curious, it was while working in the Bureau of Water Quality in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources that I was involved with developing the tradeable permits scheme there in the mid-1970s. I also cooked up the formula by which monies to build sewage treatment plants are handed out to communities. Managed to get it done in a way that those with lower per capita incomes and lower per capita property values get more. I hear my formula is still in use, despite years of Tommy Thompson as governor :-). Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Lisa & Ian Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 27, 2000 4:16 PM Subject: [PEN-L:5019] RE: global warming talks failure >Jr.>> > I find it curious that there is nearly zero > discussion of what is to me the biggest news > event of the moment, the failure of the global > warming talks in The Hague. Michael P. and > I have batted it about a bit, but that has been it. > >* > >One question I have is whether success would have provided adequate >incentives for raising investment levels for more energy efficient >industrial processes of all kinds. Would the capital created by credits >trading been channeled into the "infant" industrial ecology paradigm or >would it have become just so much more capital sloshing around for >speculation. If we're looking at, say, 2015-2020 for oil production to peak >http://www.wri.org http://www.hubbertpeak.com/ , then it would seem a >significant increase in the rate of investment should begin asap. Have the >corps. been doing anymore than spin on this issue? Will energy productivity >per unit of output be the new measuring rod for economic success, displacing >capital/labor ratios and labor productivity metrics? Is it even analytically >tractable? What would such metrics look like? > >The Europeans are into "factor 10" but we hardly hear a thing from anybody >in the US on this. > >Ian > > >
Re: global warming talks failure
1. My understanding is that the US did indeed demand that it be given credit for existing forests as carbon sinks. This is truly scandalous. 2. The first market-based system I am aware of is the Japanese coastal management regime, in which polluters must pay fishing cooperatives for the right to pollute estuaries. It seems to work pretty well, all considered. In general, market mechanisms can be OK, providing (1) emissions can be measured accurately and at low cost, (2) emission targets are lowered in recognition of the fact that under trading systems they are floors and not ceilings, (3) there aren't significant locational impacts, interaction effects or other nonlinearities, and (4) they don't impede the introduction of greener technology. The last is complicated, because markets do provide steady financial pressure for innovation (which fixed emission rules do not), but they limit the other types of leverage that can be used for technology forcing. Eban Goodstein's textbook has a nice chapter on this issue. 3. From a political standpoint, it seems that Clinton has caved in to the congress once more without a battle. He wanted an agreement he could win ratification on and came up empty-handed. Much better would have been a good-faith effort to negotiate a real agreement, and then let congress reject it at its own peril. There are hefty majorities in this country for strong action to head off climate change: this is a political battle the Democrats have only to fight in order to win. (As Barkley points out, the business community is split, which means they wouldn't be able to stand in the way.) Clinton's fear of conflict (with Republicans) is simply pathological. Peter "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote: > I find it curious that there is nearly zero > discussion of what is to me the biggest news > event of the moment, the failure of the global > warming talks in The Hague. Michael P. and > I have batted it about a bit, but that has been it. > Part of it may be that it never had much > publicity in the first place. The endless wranglings > in Florida and the ongoing killings in Palestine > have dominated the front pages, while (at least > in the Washington Post), the global warming talks > were relegated to the business section, although > collapse of the talks did make the front page, > lower half only. > Another aspect is that the details of the positions > taken in the talks seem to be very murky, as the > discussion between me and Michael P. suggests. > We know that the US wanted to count forests and > fields as carbon sinks, but whether this was based > on some not unreasonable measure of counting > increases in those sinks against increases in emissions > or some totally ridiculous proposal to simply take > existing sinks and count them as offsets against > increases in emissions, frankly I have not been able > to figure out. > Again, I am not against some kind of market > mechanism for allocating the emission reductions, as > long as it is reasonable and does not include nonsense > like the US claiming credit for reductions in Russia and > Ukraine due to their industrial depressions after paying > them some money (which will probably end up in Swiss > bank accounts anyway, if not in the pocket of Andrei > Shleifer's wife). > I should confess that my lack of > opposition to market mechanisms may reflect the fact > that I was involved in setting up the very first such mechanism > ever put in place anywhere in the world. That was in Wisconsin > in the mid-1970s on the Fox River for BOD, where there are > a lot of pulp and paper mills. Without the mechanism there > would have been a lot of layoffs in the industry. Indeed, I have > yet to see anybody offer a critique of, for example, the SO2 > scheme now in place in the US. Has worked better than > forecast, although market schemes do have to be carefully > constructed and can be messed up by monopoly power and > other difficulties. But, if properly set up, can achieve targeted > reductions for the least cost (and fewest layoffs). These > schemes are established by governments and ultimately > rely on emission levels established by government. > Anyway, back to The Hague talks failure. > As near as I can make out from reading the papers, it > appears that there was a last minute negotiation in which > Clinton offered to pull back somewhat from the US demands > on the carbon sink stuff, whatever those demands were > originally, as well as on some other points. Most conferees > were willing to go along with this last minute compromise, > including Dominique Voynet, the Environment Minister from > France and a Green Party member. But, Trittin, the Green > Party Environment Minister from Germany and the delegate > from Denmark objected. This was what brought the talks to > a collapse in the end. Apparently the key point remained > that Trittin simply rejects any use of the market mechanism, > al
RE: global warming talks failure
Jr.>> I find it curious that there is nearly zero discussion of what is to me the biggest news event of the moment, the failure of the global warming talks in The Hague. Michael P. and I have batted it about a bit, but that has been it. * One question I have is whether success would have provided adequate incentives for raising investment levels for more energy efficient industrial processes of all kinds. Would the capital created by credits trading been channeled into the "infant" industrial ecology paradigm or would it have become just so much more capital sloshing around for speculation. If we're looking at, say, 2015-2020 for oil production to peak http://www.wri.org http://www.hubbertpeak.com/ , then it would seem a significant increase in the rate of investment should begin asap. Have the corps. been doing anymore than spin on this issue? Will energy productivity per unit of output be the new measuring rod for economic success, displacing capital/labor ratios and labor productivity metrics? Is it even analytically tractable? What would such metrics look like? The Europeans are into "factor 10" but we hardly hear a thing from anybody in the US on this. Ian
Re: global warming talks failure
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/27/00 12:59PM >>> Finally, I fear that this may be one of the more serious outcomes of Bush's increasingly likely victory in the US election. What I hear from people I know at the CEA is that indeed Gore has been behind virtually all pro-environment moves by the administration, with Clinton having been much less of a pro- environmentalist than Gore (check out his favors for the Arkansas poultry industry on pollution). Oilman Bush does not give a you know what about any of this. It is far more likely that Gore would try to seriously pick up the pieces here than will Bush. Of course, as with Cuba and everything else under the sun, I suppose we could hope for a "Nixon in China" syndrome on this one too. Who else to convince Trent Lott to go along with an agreement than the oil man? CB: By the way, what was so f'ing good about Nixon going to China ? :>)
global warming talks failure
I find it curious that there is nearly zero discussion of what is to me the biggest news event of the moment, the failure of the global warming talks in The Hague. Michael P. and I have batted it about a bit, but that has been it. Part of it may be that it never had much publicity in the first place. The endless wranglings in Florida and the ongoing killings in Palestine have dominated the front pages, while (at least in the Washington Post), the global warming talks were relegated to the business section, although collapse of the talks did make the front page, lower half only. Another aspect is that the details of the positions taken in the talks seem to be very murky, as the discussion between me and Michael P. suggests. We know that the US wanted to count forests and fields as carbon sinks, but whether this was based on some not unreasonable measure of counting increases in those sinks against increases in emissions or some totally ridiculous proposal to simply take existing sinks and count them as offsets against increases in emissions, frankly I have not been able to figure out. Again, I am not against some kind of market mechanism for allocating the emission reductions, as long as it is reasonable and does not include nonsense like the US claiming credit for reductions in Russia and Ukraine due to their industrial depressions after paying them some money (which will probably end up in Swiss bank accounts anyway, if not in the pocket of Andrei Shleifer's wife). I should confess that my lack of opposition to market mechanisms may reflect the fact that I was involved in setting up the very first such mechanism ever put in place anywhere in the world. That was in Wisconsin in the mid-1970s on the Fox River for BOD, where there are a lot of pulp and paper mills. Without the mechanism there would have been a lot of layoffs in the industry. Indeed, I have yet to see anybody offer a critique of, for example, the SO2 scheme now in place in the US. Has worked better than forecast, although market schemes do have to be carefully constructed and can be messed up by monopoly power and other difficulties. But, if properly set up, can achieve targeted reductions for the least cost (and fewest layoffs). These schemes are established by governments and ultimately rely on emission levels established by government. Anyway, back to The Hague talks failure. As near as I can make out from reading the papers, it appears that there was a last minute negotiation in which Clinton offered to pull back somewhat from the US demands on the carbon sink stuff, whatever those demands were originally, as well as on some other points. Most conferees were willing to go along with this last minute compromise, including Dominique Voynet, the Environment Minister from France and a Green Party member. But, Trittin, the Green Party Environment Minister from Germany and the delegate from Denmark objected. This was what brought the talks to a collapse in the end. Apparently the key point remained that Trittin simply rejects any use of the market mechanism, although several major countries support it besides the US, including Canada, Japan, and Australia. Now, it is almost certainly the case that effectively the original negotiating position was essentially Trent Lott's. But, in fact it was the entire Senate that passed that unfortunate resolution demanding that the Third World pay for its emissions and clearly putting Clinton in a very sticky wicket. A curious detail is that apparently several major corporations have now changed their tunes and were/are supporting more serious action, including DuPont, General Motors, and Ford. Finally, I fear that this may be one of the more serious outcomes of Bush's increasingly likely victory in the US election. What I hear from people I know at the CEA is that indeed Gore has been behind virtually all pro-environment moves by the administration, with Clinton having been much less of a pro- environmentalist than Gore (check out his favors for the Arkansas poultry industry on pollution). Oilman Bush does not give a you know what about any of this. It is far more likely that Gore would try to seriously pick up the pieces here than will Bush. Of course, as with Cuba and everything else under the sun, I suppose we could hope for a "Nixon in China" syndrome on this one too. Who else to convince Trent Lott to go along with an agreement than the oil man? BTW, all treaties must be approved by a two thirds majority in the US Senate. Barkley Rosser http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb
