FOE by John B. Davieshttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/foe/$foe_by_john_b_davies/2009-10-30T22:04:00Zhttp://www.webjam.com/enBerkeley Linehttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/foe/$foe_by_john_b_davies/2009/10/30/berkeley_linehttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/foe/$foe_by_john_b_davies/2009/10/30/berkeley_line#Comments2009-10-30T22:04:00Zhttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/foe/$foe_by_john_b_davies/2009/10/30/berkeley_lineCOPENHAGEN FAILURE & THE BERKELEY LINE

You probably know that the climate talks are facing difficulties.
Everyone has done, certainly within the NGO’s, everything they can to
make these talks a success. We must work for success and hope that
this occurs.

Should they fail it will be because most people, and financial
professionals certainly, don’t feel threatened by Global Warming. In
the event of failure talks should be halted until this situation
changes.

The time when most people experience Global Warming sufficiently to
become alarmed by it I term the Berkeley Line. This is not a
mathematical concept but can be expressed in a simple mathematical
formula. Any temperature above this line will make it possible to
arrange global action to take very drastic action on Global Warming.
Most people will not think of this in mathematical terms it will
rather be something they feel. The action taken will be drastic cuts
in greenhouse gas emissions and probably geo engineering in addition.

However by expressing it mathematically campaigners will be ready more
quickly than they otherwise could be to get the global community to
react to the problem. The formula is simple. Since there was an
increase in global temperature in the years after 1976 the necessary
temperature can be measured from that time.

Hence if the global average temperature, as measured by the Hadley
Centre, exceeded 0.6 degrees Celsius above the global temperature
until 1976 before 2006 averaged over a three year period the Berkeley
line would have been exceeded. This did not happen. After 2006 the
line rises at 0.15 degrees Celsius per decade and can be measured for
any one particular year. As an example the temperature for 2011 is
0.675 degrees Celsius above the temperature until 1976 so the level
above that is 0.68 degrees Celsius above 1976.  It is slightly more
complex than this but this is the gist of it. Should there be one very
warm year, warmer than 0.05 degrees Celsius above the Berkeley Line
for that year then the Line can be deemed to be exceeded.

Should the talks fail there will be a feeling that supporting NGO’s is
futile, so support and funding will fall away. This can be overcome by
stating that our objective will be to take desperate action when the
Berkeley line is exceeded and obtaining world agreement for this
action. The problem with this is that it might be too late to save the
global climate but it seems it might be the only way forward. In this
situation humanity will need to cut emissions drastically and use geo
engineering where appropriate to try and save the global climate.

A similar situation will arise if the arctic sea ice melts in late
summer before the Berkeley Line is exceeded, then drastic action in a
like manner will be possible...

]]>COPENHAGEN FAILURE AND THE BERKELEY LINEhttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/foe/$foe_by_john_b_davies/2009/10/30/copenhagen_failure_and_the_berkeley_linehttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/foe/$foe_by_john_b_davies/2009/10/30/copenhagen_failure_and_the_berkeley_line#Comments2009-10-30T21:57:00Zhttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/foe/$foe_by_john_b_davies/2009/10/30/copenhagen_failure_and_the_berkeley_lineClimate Talks - Copenhagen - Friends of the Earth & Environmental Parliament by John Davieshttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/foe/$foe_by_john_b_davies/2009/09/10/climate_talks__copenhagen__friends_of_the_earth__environmental_parliament_by_john_davieshttp://www.environmentalparliament.org/foe/$foe_by_john_b_davies/2009/09/10/climate_talks__copenhagen__friends_of_the_earth__environmental_parliament_by_john_davies#Comments2009-09-10T21:47:00Zfoe, "friends of the earth", Environmentalparliament.org, "john davies", "john b. davies", "copenhagen accords", "friends of the earth climate change mitigation", "emissions control"http://www.environmentalparliament.org/foe/$foe_by_john_b_davies/2009/09/10/climate_talks__copenhagen__friends_of_the_earth__environmental_parliament_by_john_davies

The climate negotiations preceding the climate talks in Copenhagen are finding the negotiations difficult and agreement hard to reach. There is a real danger that global temperatures could rise significantly by about a quarter of a degree Celsius over the next five years causing climate changes which will lead to significant hardship for many people around the world. At the same time Britain is in recession and the government is spending far more than it receives in taxation.

 

In this financial situation the government may be right to be borrowing heavily but there is a better option. As a general rule the left of the Labour Party is prepared to make the tough decisions which are necessary whilst opposing the capitalist path of New Labour. Essentially it has the necessary mind set to form a government. The present situation can be eased by the actions of the British government especially if it acts quickly.

The left should propose a carbon tax be introduced as an emergency measure with immediate effect. Industry should be exempt because Britain has a large trade deficit and does not produce enough industrial goods. Essentially as there is tax on motor fuel and aviation through the duty on airline passengers the only area that the tax could apply to is domestic gas and electricity. Since this is a regressive tax the poorer sections of the community will be hit hardest and they can be protected by not raising VAT in early 2010as this is an equally regressive tax. The carbon tax should be sufficient to raise at least an extra £100 per annum and possibly significantly more from the average family, equivalent to an extra £2 billion tax revenue.

 

The government can save further money by not subsidising renewable energy and allowing the generators to invest in energy modes of their choice. Hopefully this will lead to generators choosing energy investments which cause much lower emissions than at present and because UK domestic energy prices will be higher than those of other nations investors in new generational methods will invest in the UK. However the generators choice will be accepted whatever generational capacity they invest in.

 

No other rules will be introduced with these changes as there is already far too much detailed regulation.

 

These changes will hurt many people slightly but will be a significant stimulant to industry and create employment.

 

The United Kingdom should also offer a deal to further reduce emissions by mid 2010 in exchange for a good international climate deal at Copenhagen. What constitutes a good deal can be enlarged upon if necessary.

 

The United Kingdom can offer to cut greenhouse gas emissions very substantially by at least 40% to no more than 1.5 tons ofcarbon per head by mid 2010 compared with 2.5 tons at present. This will be done through carbon taxes and international agreement that we can tax aviation fuel and marine diesel.

 

Assuming that the situation arose where the UK were committed to reduce emissions to 1.5 tons per head by mid 2010 then it can be done in this timescale.

 

Essentially Industry and Agriculture would be exempt from a carbon tax because of our huge trade deficit. There will be a great simplification of taxes on energy users. All non carbon taxes, other than VAT, on motorists, airlines and airline passengers, and all other energy users will cease. There will be a carbon tax based on the amount of carbon emitted, though double for aviation emissions because of the additional damage they cause as a result of the altitude at which they are emitted, which will be applied equally to all forms of emissions. This will be set at the level required to cut emissions to 1.5 tons per head of carbon.

 

The tax hike will be very great and tend to be regressive so the minimum guaranteed income for the poor will need to be raised substantially, though of course there will still be a small fall in their living standards. There will be a significant fall in living standards for all but the poorest. A great advantage of such a scheme is that it will show us where the most important uses of energy really are, something which is not really known at this time. The UK economy will also gain in efficiency as compared with other nations. There will be many jobs lost and gained as a result of these changes and the net balance is probably unknowable until it is put into practise.

 

This is very much a summary of the situation. In some areas it will need to be enlarged on. I can enlarge on it as and when necessary, and the details will clearly be subject to a great deal of negotiation.

 

It is probably true that only the left in the British political scene can introduce these policies because the right and centre would not protect the poorest sections of the community making the whole plan politically and morally impossible because of the suffering caused to the poorest people. At the same time the left needs to react to this urgently otherwise it will be wiped out in the coming general election.

 

Victory for the Labour party seems very unlikely unless audacious policies of this type are proposed and pushed by the left.

 

John B Davies

 

 

A simple outline of what I propose saying is as follows.

An equal carbon allowance per person is a very difficult and probably undesirable situation in most nations.

However it is probably true that every state needs to move much closer to equal emissions per person than is now the case.

The need for very large cuts in emissions will occur almost overnight. This will result from the almost certain failure of the talks in Copenhagen. The ultimate cause of this failure will be the fact that global temperatures have been below the Berkeley line so that people around the world have not experienced sufficient disruption from Global Warming to date.
When the Berkeley line temperature is exceeded there will be grave concern around the world and every nation will be ready to make desperate reductions in carbon emissions and probably to sanction the use of geo engineering.

The most effective method of deep and immediate cuts in carbon emissions will be a severe and high carbon tax. There will need to be a higher guaranteed in come for the poor. The effect of this is that many people in society will have almost equal, though very restricted, access to carbon produced energy.

In this situation it is essential that people react in different ways to the problem so that the optimum solution to the very restricted energy budget is arrived at. Hence there should be very little regulation other than the carbon tax. It was a mistake to remove incandescent light bulbs and to have efficiency standards for motor cars and also many of the safety standards like crash worthiness and the requirement for seat belts. In addition to all this passenger duty for airline passengers should be removed as should all other taxes other than an enormous carbon tax on motorists.

The reasoning behind this is that if everyone makes their very different choices about how to spend their money then the highest possible living standards will be arrived at. As regards motoring many people will give up motoring altogether a few will probably opt for safer motoring in cars which retain all the safety features but will not travel very far. A  larger number probably will opt for cheap cars with very little in the way of safety standards other than the good brakes which will be retained as a safety feature and will freewheel down hills at higher speeds than are allowed at present.
This is the only way that personal mobility will be maintained.

The motoring illustration illuminates the huge variation in the ways in which people will spend their money, which is effectively very largely a carbon allowance. Only by allowing freedom in the way this allowance is spent can the community gain the highest possible freedom wealth and satisfaction.

All the Best,

John B Davies personal 

 

]]>