From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Wed May 21 2008 - 09:04:40 EDT
I am reluctant to accept that we have to restrict ourselves to market mechanisms in dealing with C02, since these seem, to me at least, to be a clear case where planned economics has advantages. But leaving that aside and dealing with Michaels posts: -------------- Michael Second, the existing system of carbon trading scheme has artificial prices for carbon emissions insofar as they are first set by political horse-trading. Paul ---- I would agree with you here, and that is one of the big criticisms of using prices to achieve it. It will take many iterations of carbon prices to achieve the Kyoto targets. --------------------- Michael Third, there is provision for carbon offsets, but these are not conceived through a link to absolute and differential rent for the Earth's carbon absorption, but piecemeal as the carbon offset 'produced' by specific projects such as reafforestation or using pig manure to fire a power plant. This piecemeal approach means that, just as with the artificial nature of the carbon emission prices, the scheme is open to abuse because a carbon offset is given a price in relation to some sort of arbitrarily (politically) determined, notional status quo. Paul ---- You are right that the scheme is open to abuse and is being abused. But in your proposal, who is going to regulate and inspect the actual carbon absorbtion of soils? The only really secure way of absorbing carbon is to bury wood or other biomass at such a depth that it will neither oxidise nor decay emitting methane. This in effect counts on turning the wood into coal in the long term, replacing the fossil fuel dug up. If one grows plants that add to the humus in soil, that is a good second best. Growing forests is very much a third best, since the trees, when cut down will either be burnt or decay releasing CO2. This means that one could not simply award a C02 absorbing capacity to land without an analysis of how it was going to be done, how effective the different forms of absorbtion would be, etc. This again requires administration, and such administration would itself again be subject to misuse. ------------------ Michael The mere fact that carbon emissions currently exceed carbon absorption is no argument at all against first of all clearly conceiving the link through the concept of ground-rent. The problem is the utter contempt for 'mere', 'idealist' concepts which here has very noticeable consequences. Paul ----- Why do we first have to look at the issue from the standpoint of ground rent? That is a possible set of property relations that might be utilised. Surely our starting points have to be 1. A maximum target level of CO2 in the atmosphere. 2. A set of feasible technical alternatives. My objection was that you are in effect calling for a reduction in C02 emissions to zero. Is that technically feasible without huge unemployment ( see the maths in my attachment ). The Kyoto process sees a much more modest goal of reducting CO2 but not to a zero emissions level. If a non zero emissions level is to be tolerated then it is not possible to set carbon prices by equilibration between carbon emitters and carbon absorbers. There has to be some residual permissions to emit. Under the EU scheme, these permissions to emit are issued to existing industries. If one is forced to come up with a market mechanism, a much fairer one would be to give all citizens equal carbon emissions vouchers. Oil wells, coal mines and oil import terminals would then have customs inspectors who would only allow fossil fuel to be imported or produced in return for vouchers. This would prevent the regressive impact of rising fuel costs in the current scheme, since the markup in fuel prices would go in a price for carbon vouchers. Since the carbon vouchers are uniformly distributed this would have an income redistribution effect. Paul Cockshott Dept of Computing Science University of Glasgow +44 141 330 1629 www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ -----Original Message----- From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of Paul Cockshott Sent: Wed 5/21/2008 1:36 PM To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list; Outline on Political Economy mailing list Subject: RE: [OPE] Questioning the Earth's Value Version 2.0 I am forwarding Michaels reply which only seemed to get to me: Cologne 20-May-2008 Paul Cockshott schrieb Tue, 20 May 2008 15:01:40 +0100: > I dont see that what you are proposing Michael is any different from the existing carbon trading scheme, which allows for carbon sinks to be traded against emissions. > > Your proposal has the problem that it will not for a long time be possible to exactly balance emissions against sinks > so some sort of quantitative total cap on emissions is needed as per Kyoto. > > My reading of Neurath a week or two ago prompted me to a rather different solution contained in the attachment. > > Paul Cockshott > Dept of Computing Science > University of Glasgow > +44 141 330 1629 > www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of Michael Eldred > Sent: Tue 5/20/2008 11:25 AM > To: Heidegger, An-archos; artefact philosophy; OPE, List > Subject: [OPE] Questioning the Earth's Value Version 2.0 > > Cologne 20-May-2008 > > Version 2.0 of my > > Questioning the Earth's Value - > A ground-rent approach proposing a carbon sink industry > > with a new PowerPoint presentation is now available at > > http://www.webcom.com/artefact/untpltcl/qstnerth.html > > In the context of a global carbon absorption 'industry' aligning > economic self-interest with a universal interest in environmental > protection, industriousness means also letting the Earth, in its virgin > state, simply be itself. Such industriousness through letting-be is a > step on the way to humankind practising custodianship of the Earth. > > "Now, that's a topical piece!" > > "Why didn't I think of that?" > > _-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ > Name: winmail.dat > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef > Encoding: base64 Thanks for your response, Paul. Unfortunately, I was not able to salvage any readable attachment from your e-mail. First of all, I don't think anyone at all has yet seen the connection between value, power and esteem. Second, the existing system of carbon trading scheme has artificial prices for carbon emissions insofar as they are first set by political horse-trading. Third, there is provision for carbon offsets, but these are not conceived through a link to absolute and differential rent for the Earth's carbon absorption, but piecemeal as the carbon offset 'produced' by specific projects such as reafforestation or using pig manure to fire a power plant. This piecemeal approach means that, just as with the artificial nature of the carbon emission prices, the scheme is open to abuse because a carbon offset is given a price in relation to some sort of arbitrarily (politically) determined, notional status quo. There is no genuine, well-thought-out link between carbon absorption and ground-rent in the current carbon trading system. Such muddledheadedness inevitably leads to the absurd perversions with which politics is replete. The mere fact that carbon emissions currently exceed carbon absorption is no argument at all against first of all clearly conceiving the link through the concept of ground-rent. The problem is the utter contempt for 'mere', 'idealist' concepts which here has very noticeable consequences. _-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact@t-online.de _-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred (c)_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Paul Cockshott Dept of Computing Science University of Glasgow +44 141 330 1629 www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ -----Original Message----- From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu Sent: Wed 5/21/2008 2:08 AM To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list Subject: Re: [OPE] Questioning the Earth's Value Version 2.0 I am re-sending Paul's C's *attachment*. In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2008 - 00:00:04 EDT