tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post4220693589473278258..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: A new direction for climate policyeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-23092879192178341052010-06-03T00:36:16.841+02:002010-06-03T00:36:16.841+02:00Die Botschaft hör ich wohl, allein mir fehlt der G...<i>Die Botschaft hör ich wohl, allein mir fehlt der Glaube;</i><br /><br />i think those guys did a great job in creating the hartwell paper. in my opinion its a pretty well balanced view of current knowledge and unknowledge about the earth sstem as well as global political and economical future. but I fear - unfortunately - that most people like fischlin are way too much on their own kyoto - copenhagen -cancun highway (fast lane), so that they won't absolutely understand what is meant by prins et al.gregornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-84176281766929080302010-05-26T19:45:43.453+02:002010-05-26T19:45:43.453+02:00Reiner Grundmann said... 21
"I have yet ...Reiner Grundmann said... 21<br /><br /> "I have yet to see an argument to show that climate change is the result of government intervention".<br /> May 15, 2010 1:08 PM <br /><br />Actually, mr Grundmann, I have yet to see an argument to show that climate change is the result of human intervention. the government intervention is the use of scare tactics and waste of money, and actions to solve a non problem at the cost of not solving real problems.<br /><br />Leonard WeinsteinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-10404032466879037722010-05-18T00:12:52.734+02:002010-05-18T00:12:52.734+02:00Reiner:
Thanks for your time on this.
If the ap...Reiner:<br /><br />Thanks for your time on this. <br /><br />If the approach of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and TB, could actually be realised then I would be very happy with this arrangement. And this is coming from someone with a deep "sceptical" streak, particularly when it comes to all things "green". If you can persuade me, you can persuade anyone on the "right" side of the fence. It think your problem will actually be persuading the environmentalists, they have a very entrenched outlook on this issue - it's all or nothing for them...<br /><br />Best of luck with your scheme!Tobias Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-60587577454601663852010-05-17T23:11:51.663+02:002010-05-17T23:11:51.663+02:00I don't know about the prospects for shale gas...I don't know about the prospects for shale gas. But surely would not like for governemnts to pick it as a winner. This is what the Hartwell paper has to say about the handing out of the funds for RD&D:<br /><br />"Of course, we are also aware that suitable arrangements will then need to be<br />set up to manage the revenue from an hypothecated carbon tax and to direct<br />investment. There are innovative models to be studied. We do not offer the<br />examples as a complete blue-print. For example, we believe that experience<br />shows that national rather than global agents are more likely to be effective<br />in this field. China, India and the USA in particular are cool about<br />multilateral enterprises. That said, the approach of the Global Fund to Fight<br />AIDS, Malaria and TB is particularly relevant because it too was faced with a<br />need to promote “blue skies” research efficiently. The way that it avoided the<br />dilemma of ‘winners’ was by explicitly refusing to specify preferred research<br />models. Instead it invited applications from people with medical models for<br />new drugs, for new ideas in treatment regimes etc. The Fund spent time and<br />money on high-grade and intensive review processes through its Technical<br />Review Panels, worked with applicants and then invested in the successful<br />projects with successive grants, thereby funding success and discontinuing<br />failure."@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-48646738651683297682010-05-17T22:15:40.899+02:002010-05-17T22:15:40.899+02:00Reiner:
No off course you are right, one company ...Reiner:<br /><br />No off course you are right, one company could not have sent a manned space craft to the moon. But I am still worried that a very large amount of money that is to be "handed" out by the government to their pet projects is not a particularly effective way of spending the money raised. But let's agree to disagree on this:-).<br /><br />I am howeveer interested to hear what you have to say about "Shale gas" as is presented in the WSJ below:<br /><br />http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.html<br /><br />So what do you say; Will shale gas rock the world?Tobias Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-21782308887913055672010-05-17T10:54:35.761+02:002010-05-17T10:54:35.761+02:00the newspaper Zeit had an interesting article abou...the newspaper Zeit had an interesting article about the "Energy revolution from below" in th USA. Instead of waiting for the end of the ideological battle in Washington, States and local and regional initiatives already started. They make local and state laws and use Obamas money as spark. There are a lot projects.<br /><br />http://www.zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/2010-05/umwelt-oel-usaghostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-84691406186695494742010-05-16T21:49:55.299+02:002010-05-16T21:49:55.299+02:00Tobias
I am afraid so.
The market will make decis...Tobias<br />I am afraid so. <br />The market will make decisions once powerful new and cheap forms of energy are available. Until then we need years, perhaps many years of research, development & demonstration. The R&D budget of fimrs is simply not big enough. Could one company have sent a manned spacecraft to the moon?@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-35294610649255139862010-05-16T20:42:38.022+02:002010-05-16T20:42:38.022+02:00Reiner:
Thanks for your reply.
I just want to m...Reiner:<br /><br />Thanks for your reply. <br /><br />I just want to make clear that I like your scheme, because it is realistic. It can be implemented because it won't cost the enormous amounts of money that the earlier schemes have proposed (it will probably be a lot less then the energy tax that is already in play in Sweden). However will it truly be more effective in reality? That is the question at hand.<br /><br />Ok, let's now say that you have implemented the tax and you have started to raise the money needed for "innovation in energy provision." How do you actually propose to spend the money? This is where I think that the problem arises. Just look at all the money that has been allocated by the Obama administration on "green energy and green jobs". Has that money actually created less CO2 in the atmosphere, let alone more jobs? I think not (but I can't prove that for shure offcourse). This is however where the trouble arises; is it not possible for you to create a market mechanism that will lead companies to create the sort of innovation that you're after? When the money is collected and spent by the government it tends to cost a lot and not provide the right incentives for the innovation it was supposed to create in the first place. That is where the free market can help. Or am I just being too laissez faire here:-)?Tobias Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-7146298442284428842010-05-16T15:46:57.753+02:002010-05-16T15:46:57.753+02:00Tobias
agreed that there are many government schem...Tobias<br />agreed that there are many government schemes that do not make sense, and support for some renewables certainly falls in this category. The alternative is not to get the government out of regulation but to engage in a more efficient way. And we need to realize that at present we cannot change the energy/climate game through incentives that are behaviour changing. Making carbon massively more expensive will not help us achieve long term goals. It will lead to social exclusion and to subsidies for the middle classes. Yet still, we will not plug the energy gap thereby. At present, we do not have the energy technologies necessary to provid cheap energy for the world population in the coming decades. Fullstop. How can we create them?<br /><br />I have not seen an economist's analysis that says 'leave it to the market' (well, those that do not care about equity might propose such schemes). What economists have proposed are carbon markets in the hope that higher carbon prices will somehow translate into lower carbon emissions. <br />The Hartwell paper proposes a small dedicated taxt to raise revenue for innovation in energy provision.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-58445038149978202552010-05-16T15:18:41.866+02:002010-05-16T15:18:41.866+02:00Reiner:
Thank's for your response. I would sa...Reiner:<br /><br />Thank's for your response. I would say that poverty and social inequality are two different things, at least when it comes to "hard" economics. Otherwise you get into sociological debates about "relative poverty", which I find to be rather spurious because it is then not a poverty based on numbers but instead on a "perceived" poverty in relation to those who are richer.<br /><br />You say: "If we do not provide cheap energy the poor will be priced out of the market and not be able to access energy. Would you say it is their own fault?"<br /><br />Certainly not! But I would challenge the notion that the market creates more expensive energy than a state regulated one. That was really my main point, if you can make the markets create the foundations for your scheme instead of the state it will make it easier to implement in reality. I haven't got links for this assertion but certainly there have been several assessments of just how expensive the windpower-scheme has been for countries like Spain, etc where it ahs been state controlled (I'm shure you know this a lot better then me anyway:-).Tobias Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-41910576246281963342010-05-16T14:35:21.674+02:002010-05-16T14:35:21.674+02:00Two figures may put this matter in perspective. Ge...Two figures may put this matter in perspective. Germany will subsidize the production of solar electricity with about 10 billion eur in 2010. The corresponding figure for Spain was 6 billion eur in 2009 (Spain will now probably cut retroactively). Spain as a whole, public plus private spending in research and development is close to this number, about 8 billion eur per year. Germany spends in R&D roughly 55 billion per yeareduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19791182613537308672010-05-15T21:54:44.674+02:002010-05-15T21:54:44.674+02:00I said markets create externalities -- economic co...I said markets create externalities -- economic consensus.<br />But even your tweaked quote could be defended: poverty is always relative so we are really talking about social inequality. Without state intervention social inequality will increase as a result of free markets. This is not disputed, what is disputed is if this is justified or not.<br /><br />If we do not provide cheap energy the poor will be priced out of the market and not be able to access energy. Would you say it is their own fault?@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-8048075995483408242010-05-15T20:04:17.314+02:002010-05-15T20:04:17.314+02:00"This is necessary because business as usual ..."This is necessary because business as usual (operation of free markets) will create externalities that are undesirable (increase poverty, increase climate risks, etc.)"<br /><br />Reiner: I'll ignore the rest, but where on earth did you get the idea that "free markets ... increase poverty"? This I must say is challenging consensus, since basically every economist I've come across says it decreases poverty - that's why the worlds poor have luckily become a lot fewer in recent decades... If you really want this scheme to work in reality, as opposed to in theory, you had better make the market your prime concern.Tobias Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-58561420195180813602010-05-15T13:08:41.716+02:002010-05-15T13:08:41.716+02:00P Gosselin
"Climate change presents a unique...P Gosselin<br /><br />"Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen."<br /><br />This is from Nicolas Stern who advocates carbon markets to remedy the situation.<br /><br />I have yet to see an argument to show that climate change is the result of government intervention.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-7062879870951887772010-05-14T16:33:30.370+02:002010-05-14T16:33:30.370+02:00"This is necessary because business as usual ..."This is necessary because business as usual (operation of free markets) will create externalities that are undesirable (increase poverty, increase climate risks, etc.)"<br /><br />Karl Marx could not have expressed this any better. You're gifted.<br /><br />The free markets ought to just lay their tools down for a couple of days, and let those receiving tax revenues earn their own damn for a change. Governments just keep pissing it away, and create nothing (except for new scares and huge deficits).P Gosselinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-44815057466160243952010-05-14T16:13:52.340+02:002010-05-14T16:13:52.340+02:00"Your faith in market efficiency is difficult..."Your faith in market efficiency is difficult to stomach, given the world's problems which are mainly results of unfettered market operations."<br /><br />I'd say the problems are caused more by the "fettered" market operations, and not the unfettered ones. All the financial messes we have today are government created, by reckless spending. <br /><br />Concerning climate change being a problem we cannot solve, I say if you want to find a problem that cannot be solved, then just imagine one that can't. And then imagine that you can't solve it. And there it is. <br /><br />This is precisely what this whole climate issue is. A non-problem turned into a crisis by a bunch of cowards unwilling to face the responsibility of solving the real problems we have today. <br /><br />If people think this opinion is too harsh, well then too bad. Much harsher is actually deserved. <br /><br />The crisis we have today is not on the planet - rather it's in the weak minds of some people.P Gosselinhttp://pgosselin.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47628090849140177112010-05-14T13:04:58.085+02:002010-05-14T13:04:58.085+02:00@ Anonymous,
I think we are referring to two diff...@ Anonymous,<br /><br />I think we are referring to two different measures of efficiency. The one you are referring to is the quantum-mechanical efficiency for photon capture, i.e. roughly speaking how many of the phtosynthetically active photons are indeed captured in the phtochemical reaction. But these active photons cover just a quite narrow range of the solar spectrum, basically two bands at 450 nm and 680 nm. Form the energy budget point of view, photosynthesis captures globally about 0.02 watts/m2 of energy, while the total down-welling solar energy reaching the Earths surface in the entire visible spectrum is about 180 watts/m2eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3824179036519831332010-05-14T12:45:47.246+02:002010-05-14T12:45:47.246+02:00Eduardo-
if it were nature had already solved th...Eduardo-<br /><br /><i> if it were nature had already solved this problems long ago. Photosynthesis, for much of its marvelous functioning, is a quite ineffective mean of capturing solar energy</i><br /><br />Actually it is the most effective mechanism possible eg Engel et al 2007<br /><br /><i> Through photosynthesis, green plants and cyanobacteria are able to transfer sunlight energy to molecular reaction centers for conversion into chemical energy with nearly 100-percent efficiency. Speed is the key – the transfer of the solar energy takes place almost instantaneously so little energy is wasted as heat. How photosynthesis achieves this near instantaneous energy transfer is a long-standing mystery that may have finally been solved.<br />“We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis,” said Graham Fleming, the principal investigator for the study. “This wavelike characteristic can explain the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer because it enables the system to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one.”</i><br /><br />MaksimovichAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-65558915744915627522010-05-14T09:48:25.537+02:002010-05-14T09:48:25.537+02:00Peter Heller:
thanks for the link to your blog whi...Peter Heller:<br />thanks for the link to your blog which contains a fair summary of the Hartwell Paper. However, you minsunderstand its intention. It is not to develop a new policy (to solve a problem), it is about a reorientation of policy (to acknowledge that 'the problem' cannot be solved completely). We make some suggestions for such a task.<br /><br />You engage with the central points of the Hartwell paper but perhaps not deep enough. Your faith in market efficiency is difficult to stomach, given the world's problems which are mainly results of unfettered market operations.<br />And you misunderstand our proposal for a small dedicated tax when pointing to existing green taxes. These are aimed at changing individual behaviour (from fossil to renewables use) but are mainly creating additional revenue for governments. Hence the cycnicism of parts of the population for such schemes. <br />The Hartwell Paper argues that behaviour cannot be changed radically by such taxation, that access to energy for the poor would not be secured and that the energy challenge of the future would not be met. <br />Thus we need to create a fund to stimulate radical technolocal innovations, for which money comes through a very small tax. This is necessary because business as usual (operation of free markets) will create externalities that are undesirable (increase poverty, increase climate risks, etc.)@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-70049215348262392802010-05-14T00:40:50.459+02:002010-05-14T00:40:50.459+02:00Great Work, Mr. Grundmann.
This ist an excellent ...Great Work, Mr. Grundmann.<br /><br />This ist an excellent piece of political analysis as well as an opportunity to redirect the debate to the real problems.<br /><br />But I do not think, that this paper describes a new climate policy. The paper describes an approach which has been common before the rise of the apocalyptic scenarios. Therefore it is a concept for a policy without the climate issue at all.<br /><br />My full comment here:<br /><br />http://www.science-skeptical.de/blog/kehraus-der-klimapolitik-das-hartwell-papier/002562/<br /><br />(in German)Peter Hellerhttp://www.science-skeptical.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-82553259827931738922010-05-13T19:10:10.002+02:002010-05-13T19:10:10.002+02:00There is a good radio broadcast on the Hartwell Pa...There is a good radio broadcast on the Hartwell Paper on Radio 4, Costing the Earth. You can listen to it for the next 7 days or so <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006r4wn" rel="nofollow">here</a><br />And The Economist has an article and some thoughtful comments <a href="http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16099521" rel="nofollow">here</a>@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-71745626235591968572010-05-13T17:47:01.267+02:002010-05-13T17:47:01.267+02:00http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/the-hartwell-...http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/the-hartwell-paper-is-it-really-a-new-way-forward/comment-page-1/#comment-42775P Gosselinhttp://pgosselin.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43090652477786233562010-05-13T16:46:52.033+02:002010-05-13T16:46:52.033+02:00This sounds really interesting. It is a kind of re...This sounds really interesting. It is a kind of relief to read another kind of language after the religious / scientific sin-and-curve mantra. What kind of concept is 'dignity'? Interesting, as is 'access to electricity' instead of restriction.<br />I think that the effort is worthwhile in any case. The solution (if there is one at all) of the problem is very much related to how we perceive the problem. There is no objective state of climate, there are only more or less realistic approaches to deal with it. There should be no restrictions for alternative discourses, and this for sure is a 'post-apocalyptical' and a 'post-skeptical' one.Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-63473475894195816932010-05-12T21:05:15.554+02:002010-05-12T21:05:15.554+02:00The NZZ today has this article: [Sorry, only in Ge...The <a href="http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/wirtschaft/aktuell/das_scheitern_von_kopenhagen_als_chance_1.5698081.html" rel="nofollow">NZZ today</a> has this article: <b>[Sorry, only in German, summary below]</b><br /><br />"Das Scheitern von Kopenhagen als Chance. Forscherteam fordert eine Neuausrichtung der Klimapolitik<br /><br />The NZZ asked Andreas Fischlin of the ETH Zürich to comment. This is what he has to say: <br /><br />"Fischlin kann dieser Argumentation nur wenig abgewinnen. Es sei noch zu früh, das Kyoto-Protokoll zu beurteilen, das erst seit 2008 Wirkung zeige. Zudem sei es naiv zu glauben, man müsse sich nur vom Joch der Klimaverhandlungen befreien, und schon lösten sich die Probleme quasi von selbst. Er wirft den Autoren vor, eine etwas realitätsfremde Sicht der Dinge zu konstruieren, nur um sie dann widerlegen zu können. Im Übrigen gibt Fischlin Folgendes zu bedenken. Wenn man jetzt nochmals von vorne anfange, werfe man die gesamte Aufbauarbeit über Bord, die in den vergangenen 15 Jahren geleistet worden sei. Und niemand könne garantieren, dass man in 15 Jahren nicht wieder am gleichen Punkt stehe."<br /><br />Fischlin is a biologist and coordinating lead author of the IPCC AR4. He says that:<br /> <br />1. it is too early to make a judgement about Kyoto which only shows its effects after 2008. <b>How long should we wait before it is ok to dismiss it?</b><br />2. the Hartwell group believes that the problems would go away spontaneously if we stopped the international negotiation process. <b>Did he read the paper?</b><br />3. There is no alternative and we have spent 15 years within the UNFCCC framework. We would be starting from scratch if we followed the advice of the Hartwell Paper. <br /><br /><b>We are aware of this sunk-cost-argument and address it in the paper. What Fischlin does not realize is that we will be even further behind if we keep waiting for Cancun, then for next summit, and then for the one after...</b><br /><br />Even in the unlikely case that all UN nations would agree to ambitious targets, this would tell us very little about the real prospects of halting negative effects from global warming. After all, the signatories of Kyoto did not meet their own modest targets.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43959646906015696732010-05-11T20:11:59.224+02:002010-05-11T20:11:59.224+02:00First I would like to mention the correct spelling...First I would like to mention the correct spelling of Nippon Keidanren (Japan Business Federation, http://www.keidanren.or.jp ).<br /><br />Perhaps the appropriate term in place of it in the erased part of the BBC article would be "zaikai", the informal community of big capitals in Japan. The organization of steel and automobile industries are parts of it, and Keidanren is probably the most representative organization of it.<br /><br />Maybe the writer confused with the previous paper by an overlapping group of authors which included Akihiro Sawa, who (after leaving the University of Tokyo) is affiliated with the 21st Century Public Policy Institute which is a subsidary of Keidanren. He is not an author of the new paper.<br /><br />I think that involvement of capitalists result in both strength and weakness of this paper.<br /><br />The weakness of the paper I think is that it does not doubt desirability of economic growth (in the global sense, not just in poor countries). It seems to me that the authors are trapped in the economics of the fossil fuel epoch. But not only they are so trapped but also many of their adversaries, e.g. Stern Review.<br /><br />I think that the limit of growth is so severe that rich countries need to begin shrinking their economies in order to be sustainable. Theoretically economic growth can be decoupled from growth of throughput of energy and material resources. But the economic growth in the 20th century has been closely related to utilization of energy resources, as demonstrated by Robert Ayres and Benjamin Warr in their<br />"The Economic Growth Engine".<br /><br />(This comment is my personal opinion and not a piece of work as a scientist of physical climate.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13437041108856598560noreply@blogger.com