If you can't stand the heat.....

So Global Warming is no longer the phrase de jour of the Henny Penny Brigade (the fable about the sky falling in case you missed it) as surveys told them that this mostly didn't bother people, the idea of the planet being a bit warmer, it especially didn't bother people in cooler climates (read most of the industrialised world) So we now hear about Climate Change. You can tell by my reference to Henny Penny that I remain unconvinced that this is real but you will be pleased to know I don't propose to go into all that right now, for the purpose of this discussion lets assume that this is true, carbon is bad and we should do something about it.

What I wonder at is the "solution" that all these brilliant folks have come up with, in a phrase it is known as Cap and Trade. Or to expand they want the levels of carbon in the atmosphere Capped (Cap) and for people wishing to emit additional carbon to buy that right off someone who no longer needs it (Trade) so as the total amount of cargon emitted remains constant.

Effectively this is another version of the "Ban It" school of problem solving and yes I conceed they haven't banned carbon emission altogether but presumably carbon emission isn't the problem is it, it is the growth in carbon and that is what they are trying to ban. I would also wonder if this is the thin end of the wedge and long term the proposal is to lower the limits.

So what will be the result of this idea?
Well more stuff the HPB (Henny Penny Brigade) and I can agree on, the rise of industrialisation is tied to the ready supply of energy at affordable levels. Before coal came along energy was provided by horses and people, which provided limits to what was acheivable.
Further not only did this lead to industrialisation but after a patchy start a higher standard of living (lets face it the early industrial period wasn't much chop for those at the bottom of the heap)

So lets stop increasing our use of carbon based fuels, pretty obvious what's going to happen. The increasing standard of living will halt and because of the trade angle either every one will average out as the haves give up some of thier standard in favour of the have nots (think USA and China sort of leveling out) an idea I find completely unlikely or the haves will buy up the credits to the detriment of the have nots, which I find much more likely. (or third not everyone is going to sign up to this which makes it a dead duck)

So the HPB will reject this idea (of stagnant or declining standards of living, which they know is unsaleable) as they see a "switch" to other forms of energy, however it has been shown time and again that the alternative energy sources such as Wind, Solar or Bio Fuels simply can't supply enough to meet the demand (for existing levels never mind future levels). In fact we have already seen some disastourous consequences of land being switched from food production to bio fuels and increase in food prices potentially leading to some people starving to death. (the chain of connections is obviously difficult but there is no doubt the higher food prices don't help feed poor people)

All and all the Cap and Trade model (like all "ban it" solutions) is doomed to failure based on a few simple observations of supply and demand and human behaviour.

How about some things that will work, well there is Nuclear power which is effectively unlimited and produces no carbon emissions, but as Climate Change is a polished version of the "Green Religion" this is not allowed as it is against church doctrine. If HPB really believed the world was going to end soon if we don't take action (something they are fond of telling us) why are they not promoting the hell out of the only near term solution readily available. Even if Cap and Trade works it will take forever to impliment by comparision.

OK so if you don't like that one, how about the London School of Economics paper that shows the most cost effective solution to Climate Change is to provide free contraception to all the women of the world, which of course limits population growth.
Because this is the real problem (to a number of global problems) too many people for the amount of resource, potentially including carbon emission if you want to view this as a resource but again this is against some (or probably all ) religions, not to mention the "human rights" folk.

So potentially the solution to climate change rests in the hands of religious leaders which is a bit frightening. One thing I know for sure is that "Ban It" never worked before and it won't work this time either.