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.

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.

He points to ingrained problems which are holding back progress:

- The free rider problem.

- Richer countries are responsible yet want poor countries to stop developing.

- The reality that the poorer countries will be worst hit by any further warming.

On top of that we still have disagreements of whether warming is taking place to the degree alluded to in the forecasting models. Scrutiny of forecasting processes and data management is throwing up some issues. Who can we trust? We know politicians always have their own agenda and a huge amount of political capital has been invested in the whole process.

Richer countries may feel that their best course of action is to simply adapt via new environmental technologies, building and planning. Developing countries (China and India) may feel that they didn’t cause this and so can carry on growing at a furious pace.

Poor countries simply have to bear it.

As Wolf notes we may need a real wake up call to make anything actually happen. He muses on the potential of a 2o degree increase as having the desired effect. We saw this scenario play out in the “The Day After Tomorrow” where the world gets a big wake up call but pulls through in the end.

For now though it seems like we will just stumble along from one conference to the next increasing emissions but having little real impact.

As reported it paints a grimmer picture using recent data and stresses the need for immediate action. Coming just before the Bali Conference on 4th December it’s a clear statement as to the direction the UN will be looking to take.

At the same time there are those who continue to decry these types of reports as another installment of fiction along the lines of the Da Vinci code.

So where are we left?

The costs of inaction are difficult to summarise regardless of serious estimation like the Stern Report. After all economics is hardly a science well known for its predictive ability.

Ignoring those who say climate change and global warming are a sham (and they should always be part of the debate), what is the best way to approach this?

Adaptation or restraint? How about Both/And? Why does it have to be one or the other. We need to keep refining our energy systems and the one we have now is incredibly inefficient, controlled by cosy cartels and unreliable nation states.

Climate change provides an opportunity to address the environmental impacts off our consumption processes as well as the way in which we access and generate energy.

Why argue the toss? Just do both and somewhere the right equilibrium will be achieved.

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.

It’s not too late to have another look. Many Kyoto advocates have told me there is too much time and money invested in it to change tack now. Well that’s not good enough. If Kyoto is not going to work then it should be set aside. It doesn’t mean a step back but a step forward.

So i’m dusting off my proposal based around Montreal. I think it’s time to realise that major reductions can only come from the supply side.

See Climate Control and also have a look at Oliver Tickell’s proposal Kyoto 2.