|
Bonus Joules and the Knowledge Economy
|
||||||
|
|
Revealing our Thermal Beings
Click on any cartoon Chapter Five - Land of the Other- The Burning Miracle
Bonus Joules and the Knowledge Economy: All content on this site is copyright 2001 and you are free to use it with care.
Blog by Dave McArthur 24 August 2008
Note. Written in haste with a three day deadline, during which I also had to perform my full range of duties as a school caretaker/janitor.
Green
Party should retain Values – reject ETS. Dear Green
Party Thank you for
inviting public feedback re. the Emissions Trading Strategy (ETS). The Green Party
should not touch the ETS with a barge pole. It should reject the ETS
because at best it is an extremely inefficient and high-risk strategy
and at worst it contains a fundamental and fatal psychological flaw that
guarantees misery long term. To be simplistic:
The ETS is
promoted by those who do not care. It is designed to destroy civics and
stewardship. By comparison the
Carbon Tax Strategy is promoted by those who do care. It retains civics
and stewardship. Here are some of
the reasons why the Green Party should reject the ETS. The
Psychology of the ETS. I will develop on
this aspect in some detail because I am sure many others will provide a
range of examples of the failure of existing Emissions Trading Schemes
and similar market models. What they may not make clear is the highly
probable fact that the examples are symptomatic of a fundamental
systematic flaw that cannot be legislated out of existence. The Green
Party can tinker with the legislative machinery of the ETS till eternity
but its desperate efforts at fine-tuning will never make it sustainable.
The fact is the ETS machinery is taking the Party and all New Zealanders
down the wrong road. Here’s why. The most
insightful psychologists/physicists in recorded history have pretty much
proven one thing: we human beings have an extraordinary capacity to
delude ourselves. These people understood and lived the Conservation
Principle of Energy. They recognised that we each have an enormous
potential to create very sophisticated mechanisms to deny the
Conservation Principle, which states that while energy is bounteous all
forms are subject to change. This includes human beings. We arise and
pass, as do all other forms - we are mortal. Their extensive experience
reflecting and living the Conservation Principle and physics in general
provided them with detailed proof that mind and matter are intimately
connected and each human being is a steward of their actions within the
flux of change. They have
provided humanity with an extremely elegant and simple experiment with
which to prove our capacity for rationalisation and denial. It is an
experiment any human being can perform and the results are universally
consistent. Sit for one hour and be aware of no other activity than the
breath passing through the nostrils. Simply observe the sensations of
the breath in the full spirit of science i.e. with compassion, honesty,
inclusiveness, reflection and a sense of generosity of
time/timelessness. This experiment,
if performed in a state of science, provides strong evidence of the
capacity of the mind to create very sophisticated systems for denying us
the total and constant awareness of the breath. The experiment quickly
provides ample evidence of our mind’s capacity to generate very
ingenious and detailed rationales for denial – in this case the denial
of the pure awareness of the breath for one hour. The experiment, if
performed with integrity, also provides overwhelming evidence that all
is change and we are stewards of our actions within that change. The experiment
also shows the scientific observer that as part of this process of
denial the mind works to generate schisms in the awareness. For instance
it will attempt to transform the sense of timelessness during the pure
observation of the breath into discrete and fractured experiences in
which the mind becomes focussed on the clock (“God, when will this
meaningless experience end?”- time without end)
or on a memory (past time) or on a future-planning exercise
(“What will I have for lunch?” -future time) or other such
distraction. Analysis of
millennia of human history also supports the vast body of evidence
gained from the performance of this simple experiment by countless
individuals. In brief: Societies
that live in denial of change/stewardship tend to reduce humanity. This
is manifest as societies that tend to generate greater disease,
famine, war and misery. Homo
Sapiens are Carbon Beings. Human beings,
like all known living matter, consist a wide range of carbon forms.
Carbon is integral to our fuel systems- whether it is for food,
breathing, drinking, transport, dwellings or knowledge. Carbon atoms
constantly flow through the universe, including every human being, and
they are continually transformed into different carbon compounds. How we
use our carbon potential can work to sustain or destroy our species. Currently humans,
in particular a rich and powerful 15% elite or 1 billion beings, are
using that potential in extremely unsustainable ways. This includes the
majority of New Zealanders who, for instance destroy about 38 barrels of
mineral oil per 1000 people each day. This is several times the rate of
destruction by the average person among the billions of people on the
African and Asian continents- some nations average less than one barrel
per 1000 people. The carbon dioxide equivalent of our gas
emissions have increased over 40 % since 1990 when the carbon trading
ethos became part of our NZ social fabric. This includes the direct
emissions from our combustion of carbon resources and indirect emissions
through our consumption of manufactured products. The
Psychology of “The Market” symbol. All those who
have performed the above psychological/physical experiment with rigour
know the truth: humans have a vast capacity for denial of
change/stewardship. The current use of the “The Market” symbol by
our academics, politicians and media reflects the existence of one such
very sophisticated psychological mechanism for denial. In acceptance of
change/stewardship each of us individually places his or her own value
on a carbon resource within the framework of the total carbon potential.
Our walk reflects our talk. In this state of acceptance the individual
and their society work to maximise knowledge of this potential and the
value accorded is reflected in their conservative and caring lifestyles. In denial of
change and stewardship a very different process operates. Each
individual refuses to accept responsibility for his or her actions. We
adopt belief systems that work to dissociate and disconnect us from the
consequences of our activities. We erect psychological structures in the
form of socio-economic entities and institutions that enable us to both
externalise responsibility for decision-making and to ignore reality by
generating schisms in our awareness. The lack of individual stewardship
works to generate psychopathic structures and activities. This is
reflected in the symbols we employ, in this case our use of the “The
Market” symbol. Markets can take
many forms and vary across a broad continuum of individual stewardship.
At the acceptance
extreme there are markets in which the vast majority of participating
individuals maintain a strong sense of stewardship for their activities
in the exchange of goods and services. These tend to be characterised by
profoundly democratic structures in which all participant enjoy equal
access to knowledge generated by the market structure. The institution
places great importance on operating so as to conserve resources and the
options of human beings long-term. Humans are accorded a high value.
This is typified as the “service-driven market”. At the denial extreme there are markets in which only a select few individuals are able to participate and these participants have a weak sense of stewardship for their activities in the exchange of goods and services. These tend to be characterised by profoundly undemocratic structures in which an amoral elite own and control the movement of knowledge generated by the market. The institution places zero importance of operating so as to conserve resources and the focus is on providing maximum short-returns for the elite of market operators. This is typified as the “profit- driven market”. Psychologists
describe such structures as psychopathic because they lack compassion
and have an ethos that places a little or no value on the life of a
human being. New Zealand is
now known internationally among economists as the prime example of the
latter market structure*. When they research our economy they can tick
nearly all the boxes for the exemplar of a “free market economy”.
According to modern economic theory, our current “profit driven”
structure should be generating a considerable increase in wealth for New
Zealand people. By contrast
ancient psychological theory, as outlined above, suggests that the
adoption of the “profit driven market” structure in the mid 1980s
should have resulted in an increasing loss of wealth. Critical
indicators support the latter theory: most New Zealanders have
experienced a general loss of wealth. The psychological theory correctly
predicted the “profit-driven market” would work contrary to its
stated objectives in the medium-long term. Household debt levels have
risen significantly and remaining wealth is increasingly concentrated in
the hands of a diminishing minority. *Note: A quick
analysis of NZ’s main media shows that “The Market” symbol is
commonly associated with the “profit-driven market” structure
– in particular the tiny, heavily-subsidised market called the NZX, a
Stock Exchange corporation. Sometimes the media refer to “The
Markets” and again they are referring to an international group of
Stock Exchange corporations. The history of
the NZ Electricity Market, in which Bulk-generated electrical resources
are traded, provides powerful evidence of the different results
generated by service and profit driven market systems. Traditionally all
New Zealanders could participate in this market using one of 60
democratic community-based, freehold and relatively “service-driven”
structures. The Electricity Reform legislation demolished these
structures and replaced them with 6 undemocratic “profit driven”
corporations. The stated
objective of the Electricity Reforms was that they would generate more
efficient uses of resources, in particular wiser uses of our carbon
potential. This “profit-driven” structure was also supposed to lower
prices for households. Again
the converse has occurred. NZ carbon resources such as mineral oil and
gas have been depleted at an accelerated rate, what was freehold has
become
heavily debt ridden, carbon gas emissions from our use of our electrical
potential have increased while Bulk-generated electricity prices to
households have doubled and large corporations enjoy relatively cheap
prices. Effectively this new “profit driven market” structure is
transferring billions of dollars of community wealth to a small
minority. The Superanuation
Market provides similar lessons. The wealth of communities has been
invested in activities based on very low valuations of very valuable
carbon resources. This is manifest in the promotion of very
unsustainable uses of carbon (private cars, speculative dwelling
construction, motorways, armaments, drugs,
jet travel, non-recyclable plastic products, etc) and the reduction of
investment in sustainable uses of carbon (quality dwelling design and
insulation, smart rail and shipping, dwelling-generated electrical
products, soil conservation, resilient forests etc). The majority of
citizens have no democratic say in how their funds are invested and will
receive only a fraction, if any, of the wealth they contributed to the
Superanuation Market. Most of it is diverted into the pockets of a
minority who control the knowledge and brokerage processes of this
market. The recently implemented KiwiSaver is a classic example of this
“profit driven” market structure and most New Zealanders will be net
losers either directly through investment in the market or indirectly
through the excess taxation required to provide the huge Government
subsidies the brokers receive. The Carbon
Trading Market ethos has existed in New Zealand since the early 1990s
though it has only become formalised this century. New Zealand (Hon
Simon Upton et al) has played a pivotal role, especially at Kyoto, in
ensuring that this “profit driven” market model is adopted
internationally. Already its fundamental flaws are very evident and are
producing results counter to the stated objectives. Carbon gas emissions
have worsened and already it has resulted in considerable transfers of
wealth to the rich. These transfers
have occurred through a range of mechanisms including the transfer of
carbon liabilities from corporations to the average citizen and the
gifting of carbon credits to corporations based on under-estimates of
the price of mineral oil. They are gifted carbon credits to proceed with
projects such as Bulk-gen wind turbines on that basis that these prjects
would not be viable
under “business as usual” (BAU) e.g. when the price of mineral oil
was $US20 a barrel. However the gifting of the carbon credits is
needless because the project is viable under BAU because the price of
mineral oil is actually $US30 or more by the time the project is
operating. It is common
knowledge how the Carbon Trading ethos has affected our vision of trees
and timber. Trees, which play many roles in the carbon flow, have become
devalued resulting in an historic drop in tree planting while the
removal of remaining forests has increased. There has been a
considerable increase in the dwelling size/person and the expansion of
urban areas based on increasingly wasteful uses of carbon. Further evidence
that NZ Parliamentarians are in serious denial their roles as stewards
of carbon is KiwiSaver. This new scheme is a product of the Carbon
Trading ethos and exemplifies its flaws. It diverts funds away from
sustainable uses of carbon such as investment in rail, community-centred
uses of our electrical potential (broadband, dwelling scale generation
etc) and quality dwellings. It instead diverts these vital funds into
sectors such as those that make mass-intensive uses of biomass from
which only a few profit medium-term, jets, cars, armaments and motorways
and into speculative construction sectors. Similarly the
recent secretive Meridian-Comalco deal in which the average New
Zealander pays for Comalco’s share of our nation’s carbon emissions
is instructive. It receives all the general benefits and carbon credits
from being given effective ownership till 2030 of half of NZ’s
capacity to Bulk-generate electrical products from our nation’s hydro
resources. This deal also means the average citizen is subsidising the
construction of wasteful and polluting uses of carbon because most of
Comalco’s aluminium goes into manufacturing car parts. One of the
objectives of the ETS is supposed transparency. The Comalco-Meridian
deal with all its secrecy and lack of accountability illustrates very
clearly the failure of the ETS ethos even before it becomes legislation.
This deal alone should be more than enough to warn the Green Party that
the ETS fatally flawed. As a general
principle, the Carbon Trading Market rewards those who are the principle
wasters of carbon resources while punishing those who conserve carbon
resources. Example: Millions
of people who maximally conserve carbon have been displaced from their
ancestral lands so that jet and car users can use it for projects to
“offset” and “neutralise” the destruction of remaining mineral
oil/gas resources. Example: In NZ
non-car owners are heavily penalised through both their local taxes and
the high inflation caused by the wasteful use of mineral oil of
car-owners. They are forced to pay for motorways and extensive car parks
while enduring higher interest rates, higher food costs and lower quality mass
transit systems. Example
of how “The Market” values carbon Mineral oil is an
extraordinary resource in that (a) Each 42-gallon
barrel contains the potential of approximately 25000 man- hours of
labour. (b) It can be used as a
fertiliser. (c)
It can be used to store and transport food/medicines/water and
other essentials. For instance it currently supplies 5 out of every 6
calories required to put a calorie of food on the average plate of the
6.7 billion human beings that now exit. (d) It can provide
weatherproof membranes (clothing/dwellings). (e) The resource is easy
to store and transport. (f)
It has the potency to alter the carbon balances of the atmosphere
that sustain human life. In short, the
recent exponential increase in the global population of human beings has
been enabled by easily accessed mineral oil – without it at least six
billion human would soon perish. Mineral oil is
also no different to any other resource in that it exists in very
limited quantities. Thus the honest individual who acts as a steward of
this resource places a very high value on it and uses it accordingly.
In New Zealand where the average man-hour of labour is valued at $NZ23, such a value means mineral oil should be priced at over $US1000 a 42 gallon barrel. Such a value still values the carbon resource at only 4 cents per man-hour of labour. This construct
called the “The Market” places a price of less than 0.4 cents. On
some occasions in the past decade “The Market” has placed a price of
0.04cents per man-hour of labour equivalent of this extraordinarily
valuable carbon resource. Anyone who is aware of how limited remaining
mineral oil/gas reserves are can see such low prices are insane. The
prices indicate how psychotic the system is. This psychotic state means
the “profit driven market” can put a price on a carbon resource but
it can never know the value of it. This type of market cares not whether
humanity survives or perishes. The overwhelming
evidence is that “The Carbon Trading Market” will similarly
undervalue the carbon balances of atmosphere that sustain human life. A
few carbon traders will make a lot of money wheeling and dealing just as
CEOs of our "profit-driven" corporations make huge bonuses regardless of whether the
companies they administer thrive or collapse. The impacts of
the severe under-valuations of carbon in the form of fuels and as vital
elements of the atmosphere have combined to puts billions of lives at
dire risk. Education. I have found no
literature that seriously researches the impact of the use of the Carbon
Trading symbol on education. I know for a fact that the NZ Green Party
has been unable to confront this aspect of the ETS. My own research
suggests that impact of the Carbon Trading ethos is consistent with the
psychology of denial. In brief, it has worked to disempower students and
promote activities that increase their “carbon footprints”. The
statistical evidence is that the average NZ student’s use of wasteful
uses of our carbon potential has increased significantly this last
fifteen years under the “market driven” uses of carbon. This is
manifest in their increased use of cars, jets, cross-city schools,
plastics, packaged /non-local food, etc). Education
resources increasingly make associations of the “carbon” symbol with
tradable commodities. In this process there is a reduction in the
associations of the symbol with the fact that carbon is a common element
of all known life forms in the universe. While there is much talk of
promoting a sense of stewardship in our young people the real curriculum
is now, on balance, working to destroy this sense. Symbol uses that work
to sustain the concept of civics and a sense of individual stewardship
of our carbon potential are increasingly replaced by symbol uses that
work to deny these developments. A few examples: The “carbon
trading” symbol teaches that some abstract entity called “ The
Carbon Market” will assume responsibility for the student’s actions
and ensure their future. The
“carbon offsetting” and “carbon neutrality” symbols deny
the reality of change on a wide range of levels e.g. that carbon
resources such as mineral oil/gas and coal are eonic transformations. The common use of
the “energy” symbol as in “fossil fuels =energy” denies the
Conservation Principle, promotes the belief that fossil fuels are as
bounteous as energy and it excludes the atmosphere from the combustion
equation. Most revealing is
the collapse in 2000 of the 1990s nation-wide education programme Energy
Action for lack of funding and its replacement with
Enviroschools. Energy
Action taught powerful links between our use of carbon in the
atmosphere and our use of carbon in our homes and in fossil fuels. The programme was the product of the
“service-driven” electricity industry era that ended with the
Electricity Reform legislation in the 1990s. The education programme was
antithetical to the imperatives of the new “profit-driven”
corporations. The architects of
Enviroschools, however unwittingly, omitted these powerful links
when they designed it in 2000. The atmosphere is completely non-existent in its
core framework. It is a fact of history that Enviroschools has
only prospered because the NZ Green Party negotiated significant funding
for it in the negotiations following the 2005 elections. Enviroschools
is now the major symbol in our schools of our relationship with our
carbon potential and it reflects a major denial of our roles of stewards
of carbon. I am not alone in making this observation. Hon Sir Jonathon
Porritt expressed his
utter dismay at the “complete lack of reference to carbon in Enviroschools"
during his visit to New Zealand in 2006. It is helpful to ask the
question: What does this denial reflect in New Zealand society and,
in particular, what does the denial reflect in the NZ Green Party? In summary, the
above symbol uses (carbon trading/offsetting/neutral) work to create a
wide range of schisms in the awareness of the student of the impacts of
their use of carbon. Further schisms are created by the tendency for
education
materials to increasingly focus on small subsets of our carbon use,
thus further fracturing student sensibility of carbon. These are
typically characterised by symbol uses such as the “Peak Oil” symbol,
the “Climate Change=Bad” symbol, the “Atmosphere = Greenhouse”
symbol, Atmosphere = the
“Fossil Fuels = Energy” symbol, the “Carbon = Carbon dioxide”
symbol and the Dwelling = Greenhouse” symbol. Each of these
symbols generates subsets of languages and concepts that evoke
conflicting images of how the carbon flows. The net result is the
destruction of the science our children enjoy. And the intelligence of our communities is
degraded as a direct result – just as the “profit-driven”
Electricity Market structure has disempowered communities and destroyed
most, if not all, of their access to the intelligence of their local
electrical networks. There are potent reasons for my constant linking of our electrical and carbon potentials and, in particular, the “profit driven” Electricity Market and the ETS. Both of the latter mechanisms are of the same genesis and were created by the same group of merchant bankers. The collapse of Enron in the US and OnEnergy in New Zealand illustrates the corrupt nature of the mechanisms. The successful transition of humanity beyond the Cheap Mineral Oil/Gas Age is very dependent on how we use our electrical potential. The ETS will promote uses of that potential that are equally unsustainable as the uses promoted by the NZ Electricity Reforms here and the Enron ethos globally. And already we have seen the
transfer of tens of billions of dollars of “carbon credits” to the
owners of the Bulk-generated electricity sector, even as the sector
actually increased its emissions of carbon based gases. Our Minister of Energy and Minster Responsible for Climate Issues is Hon David Parker. His Parliamentary website states, “David Parker’s involvement in politics arose from his opposition to the sale of community-owned electricity trusts.” If he, the Labour Party and parties like the Green Party had confronted the unsustainable nature of “profit-driven” Electricity Market and had repealed the Electricity Reforms they would not have been in the current quandary. Communities would once again have been able to make intelligent uses of their carbon and electrical potential. Education resources such as Energy Action would now be thriving. The wider public could well have enjoyed a finer education in how and why we should place a high value (and price) on resources such as fossil fuels. New Zealand would not be contemplating the ETS now. The
NZ Green Party should retain Values. New Zealand and
the Green Party have two clear options. We can opt for
the ETS or we can opt for a civic carbon valuation strategy (commonly
manifest a direct Carbon Tax strategy). We can opt for
the ETS and place zero personal value on carbon civics and let the few
individuals that control the international carbon trading system dictate
how we use our homes and shape our nation. In other words we can deny
our roles as citizens and our roles as stewards amidst the global flux
of carbon change. We can opt for
the Carbon Tax strategy, place a high personal value on carbon civics
and retain control of how our nation uses the global carbon potential.
In other words we can accept our roles as citizens and stewards amidst
the global flux of carbon change. The flaws
inherent of the ETS are increasingly being catalogued. The European
Carbon Trading scheme resulted in the transfer of several billion Euros
to the owners of their Bulk-generated electricity sector despite their
increases in carbon emissions. The
BBC recently broadcast a two-part investigation that provided graphic
evidence of the flaws and exposed the glib fallacies of the carbon
brokers. (Note1) Also recently Mike Davis posted a wider perspective
putting our unsustainable use of carbon into an ionic context. (Note 2) And constantly
new evidence is surfacing exposing the flimsy basis of the carbon
offsetting calculations and how they consistently undervalue carbon. For
instance this month evidence was published suggesting untouched forests
store 60% more carbon than plantation forests. (Note 3) The wisdom of the
Carbon Tax ethos is also there to be articulated. Countries like Norway
have maintained carbon tax regimes that they have used to invest in
national structures that will help them survive the passing of the Cheap
Mineral Oil/Gas Age (See Note 4). British Colombia in Canada has
recently instituted a carbon tax that means the community can generate
and direct investment into quality housing insulation, intelligent uses
of smart technology, research/education and other carbon-harmonious
activities. (Note 5). The decision is
not easy. As mentioned it is the failure of groups such as our
parliamentarians, the NZ Green Party and Greenpeace to confront the
flaws in psychopathic systems such as the “profit- driven”
Electricity Market that leaves them in the invidious position of having
to decide whether or not to support the ETS - a system they sense in
their guts is fatally flawed. This type of market has resulted in an
education system that produces confused and carbon illiterate
individuals. This failure is reflected in our media. The media will
trash the Green Party if refuses to support the ETS legislation. There
is no doubt about this for at least three reasons. Our media
operates in a “profit driven” market environment where the truth is
subservient to ratings and short-term profits. Some of its proprietors
stand to make easy profits from the ETS that they could not under a
civil Carbon Tax regime. Much of the
income of our media is derived from wasteful uses of paper and being
agents in the active promotion of unsustainable uses of carbon in the
form of advertisements for cars, airlines, petrol companies, long-haul
and over-manufactured food etc. The lifestyles of
almost all the policy makers in our media, including the likes of
Greenpeace, have one thing in common. Their individual carbon footprint
is enormous compared to that of the lifestyles of the most sustainable
humans. For instance, they destroy mineral oil/gas reserves at over 50
times the rate and generate many times more carbon emissions. Many of
our media folk experience troubled consciences about their unsustainable
uses of carbon and so desperately cling to the ETS, for this provides
the psychological mechanisms for them to “offset” their destruction
of carbon resources and balances and so “neutralise” the deep
personal dissonance they experience. So the media and
other political leaders will deride the Green Party as “unrealistic”
and “out of touch” for refusing to support the ETS. And what is the
reality of these deriders? Honest
observation reveals that the reality of these detractors is that their
walk is completely out of kilter with their talk: if everyone adopted
their lifestyle and created their carbon footprints humanity would
collapse instantly into hideous global warfare and famine. New Zealanders
and the Green Party should remain mindful that there exists in our
people a deep unease about both the quality of our media and the
carbon-trading ethos. A strong residue of appreciation of values and
service remains in our nation and at present it has no political voice
with regards to our use of carbon.
In particular Green Party decision markers should remain mindful
of the party’s origin – The
Values Party, which was born out of an awareness that the
enormous military-industrial complex that emerged with the Second World
War had no values. The social structure cared not how many people
perished by napalm or nuclear bombs or poisoned seas and soils. The Values Party
never gained a seat in Parliament and yet its spirit still sustains our
nation. It is found in all of us who continue to accept our roles as
stewards of the flows and balances of carbon forms. Its spirit is found
in the belief that it is the sovereign right and duty of each citizen to
value the life of all humans and that which sustains them. In this
context taxes are a symbol of civilisation – and that includes taxes
that work directly to maintain harmony between the activities of humans
and the carbon flows and balances that sustains us. The NZ Green
Party should not touch the ETS with a barge pole for it is simply a
mechanism denying stewardship and it is completely lacking values. Our
children will bless us for rejecting it and opting to retain our values. FOOTNOTE re
Cartoon This cartoon was
drawn about 2003 and was part of a series deconstructing the Genesis
Energy education module for our children. The module was a classic piece
of Spin and denial. The web-based resource featured a large-scale coal
burning plant for generating electrical resources such as Bulk-gen
Electricity Company operates. In
the series I send Bonus Joules through the module to show how it fails
to teach how the company mines the atmosphere and to show how the module
could teach the truth if the company really wanted. It is a classic
example of how “ profit-driven” companies tend to destroy science in
our communities. The module has now been taken down off the web.
Note 1 The
great carbon bazaar By
Mark Gregory Evidence
of serious flaws in the multi-billion dollar global market for carbon
credits has been uncovered by a BBC World Service investigation. The
credits are generated by a United Nations-run scheme called the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM). The
mechanism gives firms in developing countries financial incentives to
cut greenhouse gas emissions. But in
some cases, carbon credits are paid to projects that would have been
realised without external funding. Note 2
Tomgram:
Mike Davis, Welcome to the Next Epoch posted June 26, 2008 10:48 am
Now, in a striking report from the front lines of science,
Mike Davis, TomDispatch regular and author most recently of In
Praise of Barbarians: Essays Against Empire, "welcomes" the new geologic
era we're officially entering, a period in which humanity may simply,
and catastrophically, outrun history itself. Tom Living on the Ice Shelf
Humanity's Meltdown Note 3 Untouched
Forests Store More Carbon
Posted on: Monday, 4 August 2008, 14:20 CDT A new Australian study of "green carbon" and its role in
climate change suggests that untouched natural forests store three times
more carbon dioxide than previously estimated and 60 percent more than
plantation forests. Note
4
Even though Norway is the third largest oil exporter, the fuel
is heavily taxed. The fuel tax for regular fuel pumps (gas
stations) in Norway contributed to 63% of the fuel price in 2007 Note 5 B.C.
introduces carbon ta Province is first jurisdiction in
North America to have consumer-based carbon tax
By Jonathan Fowlie and Fiona
Anderson, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, February 19, 2008
|
|
||||
