Links in the chain: Global carbon emissions and consumption

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://carnegiescience.edu/news/links_chain_global_carbon_emissions_and_consumption

Links in the chain: Global carbon emissions and consumption

Monday, October 17, 2011

Washington, D.C. — It is difficult to measure accurately each nation’s contribution of carbon dioxide to the Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon is extracted out of the ground as coal, gas, and oil, and these fuels are often exported to other countries where they are burned to generate the energy that is used to make products. In turn, these products may be traded to still other countries where they are consumed. A team led by Carnegie’s Steven Davis, and including Ken Caldeira, tracked and quantified this supply chain of global carbon dioxide emissions. Their work will be published online by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences during the week of October 17.

Traditionally, the carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels is attributed to the country where the fuels were burned. But until now, there has not yet been a full accounting of emissions taking into consideration the entire supply chain, from where fuels originate all the way to where products made using the fuels are ultimately consumed.

…

Davis and Caldeira say that their results show that enacting carbon pricing mechanisms at the point of extraction could be efficient and avoid the relocation of industries that could result from regulation at the point of combustion. Manufacturing of goods may shift from one country to another, but fossil fuel resources are geographically fixed.

…

To look at the data, visit: http://supplychainco2.stanford.edu/.

…

http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107409108

[GliderGuider]

1. Hmmm.... Which of these arrangements of deck chairs will inconvenience the passengers the least?

Jesus. Talk about missing the point.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. I believe you may have missed the point

Charging the fuel producers may be more effective than charging the fuel consumers.

[GliderGuider]

3. The real issue is not the effectiveness of taxation schemes.

If the oil/coal/gas still gets burned it doesn't matter much who pays what where.

Diddling with taxation schemes might make a percent or two difference to how much carbon gets burned, but no matter where it's charged, what "carbon pricing" mostly does is is shift the burning to those who can afford to pay for it. That's not a solution, it's rearranging deck chairs as the waves wash over the railing.

It's like nobody has noticed that we have a problem that is bigger than just a percentage point or two.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. James Hansen has proposed a very similar carbon fee

http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2010/04/25/scientist-james-hansen-proposes-%E2%80%9Cpeople%E2%80%99s-climate-stewardship-act%E2%80%9D-a-simple-carbon-fee-with-revenue-returned-to-americans/

[GliderGuider]

5. Yes. So?

Does he think it will fix the problem?

I don't really care what gummints decide to do about carbon taxes, because frankly it doesn't really matter. If it makes people feel like they're doing something useful, then by all means they should have at it with whatever approach they prefer. But I'd feel a lot better if somebody was saying that carbon taxes will never address the root problem, no matter where they are applied. Without that acknowledgement it's just another game of "extend and pretend".

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. He believes it is key to addressing the problem, yes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Mhy85pHYM

[GliderGuider]

7. My opinion is different.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. OK, He’s a respected climate scientist

You’re a bright guy, but…

[GliderGuider]

9. Yes. So?

I don't want/need to convince anyone to share my views. If you agree, fine. If you don't, fine. So I disagree with Hansen. I disagree with the views of a whole lot of people in this world, on matters great and small. So what?

IMO the problem we face is big enough that even changing to curly light-bulbs is a non-solution, let alone carbon taxes or reusable shopping bags. Feel free to clap for Tinkerbelle, though. Everyone seems to enjoy doing it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Well, as I’ve said elsewhere I don’t believe we can solve the problem as such

All we can hope to do is lessen its impact. This appears to be one way to do that. (It’s not a panacea, but it may help.)


In the USofA, people are fond of saying, “everyone’s entitled to their own opinion.”

I don’t believe that everyone’s opinion is equally valid. I tend to give more weight to the opinions of people with relevant expertise, and a good track record.


Will a “carbon tax” solve all of our woes? I don’t believe so, but I believe that it has value, and part of the reason I believe that is because James Hansen says it does.

[GliderGuider]

11. This question may sound mischievous, but it's not:

Why should try to lessen its impact? Why not just ride it out and see where it goes? Ride it out with full consciousness and awareness, learn the lessons it has to teach us about being human, grieve if we must, but not cling to the idea of stopping change (which is silly) or controlling it (which is egoistic)?

We are facing the most remarkable series of events in the history of humanity, we have the most incredible opportunity ever presented to us to be a witness to enormous change - and we want to stop it? What are we afraid of?

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. It doesn’t sound mischievous

It sounds nihilistic.

[GliderGuider]

14. Why do you feel it's nihilistic?

Are there human (biological or cultural) imperatives you feel it violates? Or is it some other reason?

I have the impression that many people feel that "being in control" in some way or another is almost a holy human duty, and to decline that duty is tantamount to species treason. I could see such a sentiment translating to a judgement of nihilism. Does that resonate with you?

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. You and I will likely be dead before the worst effects of “Climate Change” are realized

I believe that there is a moral imperative for us to act today to lessen the suffering of future generations.

Further, I believe we as a species owe a debt to other species to do our best to preserve their ecosystem.

If we merely sit back and watch what happens, I believe the most likely result will be increased suffering for humanity and other species. To passively accept that suffering, I believe is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism">nihilism.

[GliderGuider]

16. It's a fine line, all right.

My view is that consciousness makes it literally impossible for any perspective to be nihilistic. That's because every viewpoint contains its opposite, and consciousness makes it inevitable that we are aware of both simultaneously. Artists call it the figure-ground awareness.

For example, the idea that we have a moral debt to other species that we must discharge is balanced by the idea that we are not indebted to other species in the least (and of course vice versa).

The concept of human moral responsibility to other species is a standard tenet of Deep Ecology. I'm currently reading a fascinating paper entitled Cross-pollinating Marxism and Deep Ecology: Towards a Post-humanist Eco-humanism (PDF) by a Canadian ecological philosopher. In it he contrasts what he calls the "soft" anthropocentrism of Deep Ecology with the "hard" anthropocentrism of humanism, Marxism and capitalism. His point is that even Deep Ecology is anthropocentric, because it describes our relationship of obligation to other species as springing from our consciousness. I've called myself a Deep Ecologist for some years now, but Mikuluk's analysis has crystallized a lingering discomfort I've always had with that philosophy: even in its attempt to be egalitarian between species Deep Ecology entrenches an anthropocentric viewpoint by ascribing special moral responsibility to humans. IMO this doesn't fully acknowledge the human role in the co-creation of the biosphere, or fully acknowledge the position of non-human species in that process.

For me the biosphere is an emergent setting that is continually being created out of the interplay between all its elements. If humans can be said to have a responsibility, IMO it is our responsibility to use our consciousness - to be mindful at all times of all our actions. When that responsibility is fulfilled, all other action (or even apparent non-action) takes it appropriate place.

The validation of moral debt alone is an anchor that can drag our consciousness to a standstill. Holding both the ideas of moral debt and moral freedom at the same time is a process that can point us toward liberation. And liberation is in no way nihilistic.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Thinking in terms of the biosphere, instead of the individuals it comprises is a form of nihilism

When we contemplate a rapid, dramatic change in the biosphere (a nice, safe abstraction) that implies extended suffering on a global scale.

Attempting to undo at least some of the damage we have done may alleviate suffering on a global scale, not just for other species, but for our own as well.

[GliderGuider]

18. I've got no problem with undoing damage.

In real life I do things like support SSCS, donate 0.7% of my income to the Stephen Lewis Foundation, eat vegetarian, use public transit daily, yadda, yadda.

I find that thinking in terms of the biosphere keeps me in touch with the idea that humans are an intrinsic part of an extended, interconnected, global family of life. But when I think about helping, I tend to bring my horiozons in very close. It's my version of "Think globally, act locally."

I've found that thinking primarily in terms of "saving the world", of stopping the changes, or feeling mainly grief, guilt and blame about the state of the world keeps me from living. Reveling in the sheer joy of the accelerating changes doesn't keep me from remembering the whales, the snail darters, the ocean dead zones, the expanding deserts, the melting ice caps or the cholera-infected children of Haiti. Quite the contrary - holding both the grief and the joy at the same time is what makes me feel most alive.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. I keep flashing back to the climactic scene of It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

A fireman tries to retain control of the ladder, but the great mass of people at its top prevents him from doing so.
http://movieclips.com/h678A-its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world-movie-ladder-rescue/

[GliderGuider]

13. .