November 27, 2009


Everything turns to shit.


  1. Here's a question. Does anyone actually understand what this ETS thing is about anymore? Or what it's actually supposed to achieve? I've totally lost the plot about the whole thing.

  2. We're leading the world Dan, the WORLD - LEADERS!



    Yes, by reducing our 1.2% contribution to global carbon emissions we will destroy our own economy for the remainder of the millennium. We will, however, contribute to inter-generational equity, as our carbon reduction (of approx 00.0000003% of 1.2%) will save approx 0.000000000000000000000011 lives per decade, and approx 3 and a half square inches of currently barren soil in Guatemala.

    For this, we will open the flood gates for multi-nationals and super-rich dudes to become richer, as they trade big jars - that will look mysteriously empty - of carbon emissions amongst themselves, and emit, emit, emit to their heart's content, as their exemptions and subsidies will allow them to spill forth more carbons in a year than they'd previously planned on emitting during the next decade - and so, being permitted, they will spill forth, merrily and thusly.

    You and I, meanwhile, will be fined for burping and will have to take out a second job and a personal loan to pay for electricity to run our computers. Not the desk lamp though: candles will be cheaper.

    Now, someone pass a lump of coal, I feel like filling a few Xmas stockings.

  3. Um... the ETS is...

    1) Something the left disagrees with but will support anyway, because it stuffs the Liberals up.

    2) Something the right disagrees with but will support anyway because __________ ?!?!?!?

    I dunno either Dan. Maybe someone could fill out the blanks in that last line.

  4. Politicians don't dare disagree with the 'consensus', it will cost them the majority vote. They are driven by fear.

    Unfortunately, for all of us, science isn't conducted by popular vote, yet that is the level of legitimacy being presented.

    The real questions are whether global warming is real, and if so, is the cause (not a fucking correlation!) anthropogenic.

    If the answer to one or both is yes: what, if anything, is humanly possible to address the problem.

    The other difficulty is that even if the climate is changing - toward unusual hotness - why do humans feel the need to intervene?

    Isn't the green message, over the ages, one of non-intervention in the natural world?

    Yet, here we are, taking steps to intervene on a scale previously unimagined, with consequences unknown.


    Oh, and let's not forget that more than 50% of all research (of the properly scientific kind) is eventually proven wrong. Fact.

  5. As far as I can work out the ETS is a non-interventive strategy, only it's designed to not-intervene in a way that is fantastically more expensive to taxpayers/energy users than the old system. At least, that's what the subsidies to CO2 emitters, and the administrative costs, combined with the fact that this does nothing about the CO2 already in the atmosphere suggest to me.

  6. Ah yes! It's the do-nothing scenario that costs five trillion dollars, plus interest.

    Politics is a very funny business.