Simply put the developing or poorer nations have got pressing issues of poverty to deal with and they simply don’t see why they should have to pay for the ecological sins of the developed and richer nations, never mind the fact that they got rich on the back of an imperialist framework!

It just seems that no deal can ever be done without some form of equity payback. There has been some suggestion that revenue raised from either carbon taxes or auctioning of permits could be rebated on a per capita basis. This is simply redistributing the costs in a progressive manner and makes sense on the face of it.

However, can’t see the wealthy punters in the West going for that. What to do?

Maybe it’s time to look for the simplest solution and just get a carbon tax on the books. It’s quick and simple as you only need to tax, at source, basic fossil fuels: oil, gas and coal.

This is something i posted about in 2007 but it’s time to take another look.

Let’s say we have established a price for “carbon”,this being a proxy for externalities caused in the combustion of fossil fuels. The most efficient way to alert the market to this cost is to price it in at source ie where the fossil fuel is sold wholesale. This would be the global oil, gas or coal exchanges.

In my paper, Climate Control, i argued for the establishment of a World Energy Agency, where all fossil fuels were sold through. Simply add on the price of carbon and leave it at that. As a one point global process it would be very simple and then that price information would flow out across the world. End of story.

But there are two issues here:

One is that we are trying to stop carbon quantities breaching certain levels. The price elasticity of fossil fuel consumption may hinder this somewhat as consumers of oil products are slow to change demand in response to price. But there is no doubt that the price rises over the last few years certainly caused some pain in the wallet and made people think about ways of cutting back on petrol usage.

The second issue is interesting. What happens to that money? Who does it belong to? As a charge being levied by the WEA it has no soveriegn recipient. So i propose this “charge” goes into a Global Environmental Contingency Fund (GECF). I want to make clear this is not a tax, it is a cost. It is therefore directly related to an expense which is in this case the use or environmental services.

Let’s stop using the word tax. It’s incorrect and draws attention from the fact that we are simply paying for a service we are using.

So how could the GECF work? I have to give that some more thought but the rough idea is that it would hold those funds in bonds (sovereign) or could lend them out at low interest to fund projects that have a positive environmental benefit. This is the tricky bit. But let’s sit with the first piece. The money comes in and sits in bonds. That’s it. So it’s not being spent on projects of a dubious outcome. As the title implies its a Contingency Fund. We don’t know for sure what will happen in the future. The money can be repaid if required by discounting the price of fossil fuels if it turns out that the cost has turned out to be lower.

What could New Zealand do right now?

Implement a tax and use that revenue to reforest the whole country. This can link into a global emissions trading scheme at some point but the important point is to make sure that the tax collected does not go into the general pot.

People need to see the flow of money from them into pure offsetting activities. If we don’t restrict supply (the only accurate and long lasting solution) then we have to slowly change behaviour and do it in the most straightforward way. A ring fenced and targeted tax is probably the best option we have right now given the likelihood of any global agreement at Copenhagen.

Fiddling whilst the plant burns seems to be infectious. With the global economy collapsing around their ears policymakers have never had a better opportunity to declare a move to a quota based system of fossil fuel extraction.

With oil prices at 5 year lows, down $115 from the highs earlier in the year, I am sure that producers would be willing to sit down and listen.

Whilst global demand is down there is an opportunity to slow emissions at source by setting a target as per the Sustento Framework and making it stick. All the talk of the last few years has been about increasing demand for fossil fuels and the impossibility of reigning that in.

Well right now any demand would be welcome. There has never been a better time to lay it on the line. It’s time to stop pissing around with talk fests and policies which will never actually reduce emissions in any meaningful way.

Set a target for global annual fossil fuel extraction and then stick to it.

You can read it here if you haven’t read the old version.

The key theme is that we must control what we take out of the earth rather trying to control emissions after use. It also stresses the need for a global carbon budget.

Nothing has happened in recent years to change my thoughts on it. It is a large canvas with many themes to explore. If anyone wants to take on some of those themes in a new piece of research just let me know.

Forgive me for wondering if that isn’t the whole point. First up it was the carbon charge which was dumped back in December 2005 and now the brand spanking new ETS which looked full of holes and now is barely recognisable as a piece of effective policy.

The main concern cited by “critics” is that higher costs may be passed onto consumers. Well the goal of the carbon charge and the ETS is to raise prices in order to lower demand. However, fuel prices are generally regarded as inelastic i.e. demand does not fall as prices rise, which consigns a price approach to the bin. Of course, there is some level of price at which demand will certainly fall. According the research it is when the price increase exceeds income rises i.e. the is the affordability as opposed to higher prices.

Or to put it more succinctly as long as money is available fuel will be purchased regardless fo the absolute price. So the supply of money is a major player in this equation. Now with the credit crunch bedding down money has become less available and so the impact of higher fuel prices is starting to kick in.

So given fuel prices have nearly doubled in the last 3 years, one would expect to have seen a huge fall off in fuel consumption. This has not been the case.

One can conclude that price measures will not reduce emissions and therefore any policy based on this approach is doomed to fail.

Why, you may ask, is no one clamouring for quotas to be implemented? The answer to that is very simple. It’s too hard.

So let’s keep pouring millions of $ into schemes that won’t do the job and keep the veneer of pretending to do something about climate change. They’d be better off spending the money on something important like child poverty and education.

Whether its due to bio-fuels or falling farm output, the situation is the same. People cannot afford to buy food.

It’s interesting that in the drive to grow manufacturing and service industries, agriculture has been relegated to a has been and rather dull business. But as we know we all need our daily bread and this rather sharp reminder will see farming regain its importance as a primary and important piece of industry.

This may even be the straw that breaks the back of farming subsidies.  But we may be facing a period of high food prices with the embedded cost of oil at every place in the supply chain.

If there’s an answer its to eliminate subsidies (this from 5 years ago)and start to grow food locally as much as possible.

Time to bring back the veggie patch.

No doubt they will all keep knocking this ball around until someone caves in. But why bother? It’s simply the wrong approach. At the moment we have a free energy market (actually its dysfunctional but that’s another story) where people can choose to buy what is offered. If we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we simply need to reduce the amount of fossil fuels available to create them.

Then just leave the market to operate as normal. Simple.

I know I’m restating my position on this but the longer this goes on the more clear it becomes

Arguing over who is responsible and who must cut what is really a waste of time. It’s not an argument that can be won by either side. The simple question to be asked is whether global emission levels need to be reduced. If so then they need to be reduced through a global mechanism such as I have proposed in Climate Control where emissions will be reduced by virtue of a quota agreed at the point of extraction not use.

Otherwise we might as well stop wasting our time and focus on adapting and developing cheaper supplies of energy.

What always surprises me is that no matter how many calls for action there are very little has been done to really restrain emissions. Why is this? Well quite simply this is a very tricky issue. Economic growth is not going to be sacrificed on the altar of environmentalism or, more to the point, an outcome where there is uncertainty. So it drags on. China continues to expand its economy at a fierce pace and shows little interest in reining in its emissions insisting that it’s full steam ahead.

So in come emissions trading schemes: carry on as normal but buy your way to heaven via a piece of paper saying “1 tonne of carbon”. If it sounds like a papal remission that’s because it’s pretty close.  It’s a piece of paper you get for money which blesses your wins away.

The problem is quantifying and packaging a tonne of carbon or equivalent. How can we be sure that people will get what they pay for. This is where certification comes in. We need an agreed international standard and a single market. After all there’s only one type of carbon just like there is one type of gold. Its not like crude oil where there are different prices for different types.

Another issue is the changing science. For example, if forests are used as credit generators because of their ability to sequestrate carbon, there is a possibility that the amount the sequestrate may change over time either due to ecological reasons or a change in the understanding of how and how much they actually lock up and over what time period.

As a business having to purchase carbon credits on paper I would be crossing my fingers and hoping it all works out otherwise i might be out of business.

There is also a concern about the over issuance of paper credits. As readers will know they fractional reserve money system we have started life in a similar fashion: an underlying quantity of a commodity on which paper bills were issued. We know the outcome of that, a money system with no control.

From what i have seen this issues haven’t been covered in enough detail. I can still envisage a scenario where the carbon credit market takes off but overall emissions are not reduced. The goal of all this is to reduce emissions not create a huge market in carbon. But for now its the easy way out and politically more acceptable. Trees can take the slack for now and maybe technology can takeover at a later date.

Eco tourism is all the rage these days and rightly so. We should always consider the impact of where we go and what we do. But as consumers of goods, services and exotic holidays we expect the price to reflect the cost of what we are paying for. If it doesn’t is that our fault or problem?

Well that’s where the consideration or “ethics” of your decision comes into play. I’m in favour of travel as it expands the mind. body and soul. It allows us to gain a different and newer perspective on the world. But do we dare look beneath the surface as Leo has done?

I’m reminded of the excellent Stephen Frears film “Dirty Pretty Things” about the  immigrant workers who keep London going at night whilst people sleep easy. Crap working conditions for service staff are nothing new so why should it be any different on holiday?

What should happen is that people get paid proper wages and work in decent conditions. Then it’s up to them whether to take a job or not. Madeleine Bunting deals with this issue quite well in her book “Willing Slaves” which also looks at the guest worker phenomenon.

My interest is more in the environmental sphere. Simply put we should be paying the Trucost of our activities. How we get that is a bit trickier but doable.  I’ve looked at this before and having been to the UK recently its clear that this issue is center stage.

We must move quickly to connect external environmental costs with the pricing mechanism. Once a cost has been calculated (carbon, nitrogen runoff, water) then that cost gets added in at the point of extraction, abstraction or manufacture. The EC (external cost) flows back to an Environmental Contingency Fund where it sits (in sovereign bonds) until it can be put towards paying for the exact cost that was incurred, whether that is planting some forests to sequester carbon, cleaning a river or fencing land or implementing new water management processes.

As much as we would like it to be, it isn’t (as yet) an exact science. But it will alert consumers to the true cost of the good and allow them to make more accurate purchasing decisions.

Then maybe we can actually enjoy our holiday instead of worrying about how much damage we’re doing to “the planet”.

His main focus is always to step back from the hysteria and hype and look more pragmatically at the problem. I would say this is a sensible approach though it’s hard to ever get sensible debate when it comes to the environment.

Nothing else quite allows people to represent themselves as good or worthy and label others as bad or dirty.

Lomborg is not into saving the planet. He’s into calm reasoning and tries to stay within the remits of his expertise as a statistician. Interestingly enough Al Gore has been getting a judicial working over in the UK over his alarmist portrayal of the situation.

The moral of this story is that we need to make reasoned policy based on what we know and can observe. That a warmer climate presents severe challenges is not without doubt but let’s keep a clear head whilst working out what, if anything, we can do about it.

Letting issues like this develop into a battle between good and bad just leads to reactive approaches. Lomborg falls somewhere in between and is worth listening too even if just to disagree with.