Have a look at the material on the UK
and
I attended the debate held in September 2010 and can be spotted in the video proposing (albeit without the soundtrack) a model for solving climate change using an environmentally-neutral energy pricing basis.
At the September 2010 debate, it suggested to me that some of the scientific advice was being tailored to reflect what was considered to be politically achievable (probably within a single term of Parliament), not necessarily the actual core issue, which inevitably would take a longer to reach fruition. If real, this is worrying. It links to Sir Paul Nurse’s conclusions, in the January 24th 2011 BBC Horizon programme, about the poor level of scientific communication and understanding.
One of my objectives is to highlight the need to build consensus that all energy policies should be environmentally neutral, which means the cost of pollution is calculated and added to the cost of the energy.
What arguments are there to counter this?
This approach is valid for all countries, consequently global alignment, in theory, should be achievable.
By calculating the full cost of each form of energy, it will be possible to identify the most cost-effective and therefore most efficient forms.
By including the cost of pollution into the product cost, the pollution cost element must be used to actually remove the pollution caused by using the energy, in order to maintain the environment in a stable condition. Dealing with pollution in this way is a new business model.
Pollution, through being ignored in economic terms has effectively been “free” up until now.
Economists should have been banging the drum about this big anomaly, because in reality, anthropogenic pollution has never been and never will be “free”.
It’s not unequivocal, but the probability is fairly high, that the world’s climate and oceans are starting to react to anthropogenic effects.
Personally I don’t need irrefutable, or even strong evidence that man is changing the climate, because it is blatantly visible what we are doing to the planet as a result of:
· Not implementing environmentally neutral policies and
· Failing to account for the real, full cost of pollution
I don’t see much benefit in science trying to prove anthropogenic climate change. This is more of a distraction from the relatively simple scientific and economics-based principles for actually dealing with human pollution.
This is where a national, followed by an international consensus is required. Subsequently, an internationally agreed programme to independently-derive full cost estimates for all major sources of energy, is required.
Step-1 is to get political alignment that we need an environmentally neutral energy basis both nationally and internationally.
Step-2 is to calculate the full costs of all major energy sources that include the cost of removing pollution.
Step-3 is to implement the environmentally neutral energy policy using the most economic and efficient energy sources.
Many will say this cannot be achieved. I disagree.
If you don’t think this is achievable, you’re welcome to say so, but you also need to provide a different basis and better solution.
Who can argue against the validity of an environmentally-neutral energy policy and therefore the need for costing the removal of pollutants, followed by actually removing them?
No comments:
Post a Comment