Copenhagen & Economic Growth - You Can't Have Both

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
,
41

There are many very thoughtful people trying to bring about constructive changes in the public policies and laws of their governments. This is a daunting task in a world where law has been utilized to secure and protect entrenched privilege for centuries. Forcing governments to act in the common interest, and even to enforce existing laws, is proving nearly impossible.
Take, for example, one of the most potentially important pieces of international economic law ever written – the Law of the Sea treaty. The fundamental principle of treating the seas as a global commons is that the earth is the birthright of all persons, equally. And yet, what every national government has tried to do is claim sovereignty and exclusive rights of exploitation over larger and larger portions of the earth’s surface, its seas and its subsurface minerals. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and a long list of political economists understood what was at stake. Following on their analysis and extending it, Henry George called for the societal collection of the annual rental value of all locations. Do this and two things would follow: government would have a sustainable income stream to cover the cost of public goods and serices as well as pay down national debt; and, by removing the profit from speculation in building locations, in natural resource-laden lands (and other forms of natural monopolies) the selling price of land would fall and remain low. That is, land would become far more affordable whether for residential or commerical construction, for agriculture, for environmentally-sustainable resource extraction – for whatever productive use people have for nature.

If only we somehow could muster the political will to do what is rational and moral.

 

42

I’d call it denial myself, or at the very least a lack of understanding of physics and chemistry…

I find it amazing that after presumably doing the crash course, you can still go on about creating growth…  which part of exponential do you not understand…? ALL past civilisations have collapsed BECAUSE of growth…

Mike

43

Mike,
I wrote: “As long as man exists on this planet, there will be society, for man in civilization must depend on fellow man in order to create growth or sustain prosperity.”

Not only did I not write a single word about exponential growth, or sustaining growth, I also wrote that some areas of the world will experience societal or economic collapse and chaos.

If you watched the Crash Course, then you would remember that the options are growth and prosperity. You can’t have both. With surplus, you can either have one or the other. If you want to quote the Crash Course, then given enough surplus, you can choose either, but that has only been an available option given the vast amount of surplus recently enjoyed by global societies.

While human civilizations past and present have always experienced varying growth, both positive and negative, I respectfully disagree with you about growth always leading to collapse. Civilizations have also collapsed because of war or anarchy, famine and plague, and global cataclysm or Earth changes. Granted, except in the case of global catastrophe, you could pose the argument that growth plays a part in leading to war and famine. I do not disagree that the mindset that persistent never-ending growth is a false hope. 

You may have missed my point completely. I recognize my ability to convey ideas may not be as prescient as Dr. Martenson’s, but I am neither a Doctor nor an experienced academic.

Cheers,
Rand 

44

I have been a subscriber to the Chris Martenson site for over a year.  I am also a Canadian.  I follow and see what is going on around the financial world through Chris’s site and a few others that I subscribe to as well.  I see the reckless financial attitudes portrayed by the American government and many other governing bodies around the world. My question is why is this going on??? Can so many of these governing individuals be so stupid as to destroy countries through such poor economic decisions or is there another agenda out there.  What is really going on??
There is an extremely informative podcast that can be heard on KingWorldNews.com by a gentleman by the name of Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thathcher.  In this interview he states that he read the Copenhagen treaty, which is by the way a couple of hundred pages long,  and the real agenda from this meeting is to form a one world government communist style.  

Chris, have you heard this interview?  And if you have, can you provide any comments.  If this is the big old world plan, sounds like there is not much that the “ordinary folk” out there can do, but prepare, especially in the area of food, and to be as self sufficient as possible.  Thanks.  DB.   

45

James Hansen, climate scientist with NASA Goddard Institute, is generally vilified by the denialist crowd for his findings wrt climate change.  But now he is emerging as a strong anti-cap-and-trade activist.  Here’s an essay he delivered to the Chairman of the Carbon Trading Summit in New York on Jan. 12:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100112_PeopleVersusCap.pdf

[quote]Cap-and-trade is a hidden tax.  An accurate name would be cap-and-tax, because cap-and-trade increases the cost of energy for the public, as utilities and other industries purchase the right to pollute with one hand, adding it to fuel prices, while with the other hand they take back most of the permit revenues from the government.  Costs and profits of the trading infrastructure are also added to the public’s energy bill.

Fee-and-divident, in contrtast, is a non-tax.  The fee collected at the first sale of oil, gas and coal in the country does increase the price of fossil fuel energy.  But 100 percent of the fee is distributed monthly to the public as electronic deposits to the bank account or debit card of all legal residents, with half shares for children, up to two children per family.[/quote]

[quote] As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy their use will continue and even increase.[/quote]

[quote]We can cure our fossil fuel addiction and in the process reduce emissions that cause climate change.  It requires that we take actions for the public interest, not for special interests.

What we need is an approach that addresses the fundamental fact that keeps us addicted to fossil fuels; they are the cheapest form of energy, provided their prices do not have to include the damage they do to humnan health, the environment, and the future of our children.

Fot the sake of the people, especially young people, there should be a rising price on carbon emissions.  The price should rise at a known economically sensible rate, so that businesses have time to plan their investments accordingly.  The money collected should be put in the hands of the public, so they are able to make the purchases necessary to reduce their carbon footprint.

The money collected should not be used by Congress to invest in energy R&D.  It has been shown time and again that Congress does not invest efficiently, and certainly not compared to the private sector.  Private sector investments will be made if a rising price of carbon emissions is legislated through a carbon fee that makes the rising price explicit.  The government already has resources to support research - it should not steal fee-and-dividend money from the public.[/quote]

I don’t think that the politicians and fossil fuel industry are going to give up another revenue source easily, but Hansen has suggested a framework that addresses AGW and looming shortages of fossil fuels while being relatively revenue neutral for the average consumer and providing an incentive for conservation of energy.  It is a beginning of a dialogue that could lead to real solutions.  Unfortunately, I am jaded enough to believe that real solutions to real problems will not be made until Congress, the fossil fuel industry and Wall St. are hit between the eyes by the proverbial 2X4.

Doug