Way back up there at the beginning: Just an answer and a correction…the graph is of CO2, not temperature. The melting of the polar ice will not increase CO2 levels much directly, although in raising the temp it might trigger other tipping points which will directly increase CO2, like forest fires, tree diebacks and permafrost melting (which will release large amounts of methane, also not on the chart but should be, maybe). I see it says CO2e; maybe that means equivalent and does include other GHGs…I’ll check on that. Maybe you should too.

JR,
Emissions Trading Scheme
(hardly “imagined”– the carbon price plunged with the simultaneous corporate scramble to offset widespread economic downturn by dumping their carbon shares), this somehow, coming as a complete surprise to economists! (to which free marketeers habitually and predictably respond: “we weren’t able to do what we REALLY wanted to do” (in other words, we need to impose more of our ideas with less regulatory hindrances)

[JR: Uhh, where are the failures. Prices for commodities collapse in a big downturn. Has Europe failed to meet its Kyoto target?]

Beyond “leadership” and their applied failures of market “logic”, there’s:

Market Failure
The quintessential failsafe for all apologists and cheerleaders of free market ideologies — blame it on “market failure”– and…

Alan Greenspan’s admission to the world that there are structural flaws in free market theory, essentially, that practitioners cannot be counted upon to look after their own self-interests: they eat their own young, and the young of others. Additionally, the not-so-small detail that what is good for the investor is also not necessarily good for the planet.

[JR: Try again!]

Download an analysis of the offsets provisions proposed in the Waxman-Markey draft bill at http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/4223. The analysis was done by International Rivers and Rainforest Action Network.

The WRI analysis assumes that 100% of the offsets are additional. Yet, there is ample evidence showing that this is not the case. 3/4 of CDM projects were up and running at the time of registration, making it difficult to argue that they were additional. The Government Accountability Office has also acknowledged that it is difficult to ensure “that every credit represents real, measureable, and long-term reductions in emissions,” in a report published in November 2008.

Even if the offsets were 100% additional, it would still stand that US domestic emissions haven’t been reduced, Communities living in the vicinity of polluting industries continue to suffer. The use of offsets also delays the US transition to a carbon-free economy. Starting the transition sooner, allows us to make a smoother and more gradual transition and will cost less. Using offsets is a delay tactic. It is akin to putting off studying and then cramming for the exam the night before.

The domestic offsets would come mainly from changing management practices on forests, farms and ranches. But land-use offsets not only replicate the additionality problems of the CDM but have a whole set of added complications due to scientists’ inability to accurately predict the climate impacts of land use changes (the European Union does not allow the use of forest offsets mainly for this reason). Also, these sinks are often temporary.

[JR: I hate to say it but the analysis is flawed for reasons I will lay out in a few forthcoming posts. Fundamentally, though, the report makes the case for why there never will be 2 billion offsets purchased in any year. Maybe one tenth that.]

Sounds like we are being stampeded, folks. To what end? To start a junk market in traded carbon offsets. This should be entitled The Wall Street Swindlers Bailout Act.

Here’s a counter-argument: a grand fiasco will make it harder to muster the gumption for an effective, focused effort next year. Something that will really curb CO2 emissions significantly. When the subject comes up again, the disgust with W-M and its hidden agendas will make people suspect that they are being played for fools again.

[JR: The best thing you can say about Waxman-Markey is that it is the most important and substantial piece of energy and climate legislation ever put before Congress, and that it would put the United States on the necessary path to avert catastrophic global warming while jumpstarting the transition to a clean energy economy.]

http://blogs.edf.org/ climateatlas/ 2009/ 01/ 14/ what-our-co2-emissions-could-be/

Our timeframe to do something about forests is evidently very small…that and the reasons Joe elucidated are why they need to be a focus.

But, OK… fine… it’s not enough, but it’s better than nothing. Let’s move it on to the Senate. Waxman-Markey started out looking for a 20% to 30% reduction… maybe the Senate can get that measly 14% it calls for now back up to at least 20% before it goes to the President’s desk. The EU is going for a 30% reduction by 2020… surely we can do as well? Are the French and the Germans better than us? Is America willing to pat itself on the back for a crummy 14% reduction when they are going for 30%?

How about we put the political dialog on *that* basis and see how the conservatives look wearing that egg on their faces? They are going to allow the USA to be beaten by the French and the Germans?

http://www.nytimes.com/ 2009/ 01/ 30/ science/ earth/ 30forest.html?_r=1

As suggested, if I recall correctly, this does not replace lost biodiversity – flora and fauna that grow only over long periods, but it’s some good news.

A “C” normally means passing, however WM-DD isn’t going to get us down to where we need to be in time (i.e. keep us below runaway feedback points where we loose control), not even close. That doesn’t sound like a passing grade to me.

I’d say, as it is, this is a D+ at best and we can only hope it can be strengthened into something that will do what we need as time marches by and we fall further into crisis territory (we have to count on our great political leaders to do this strengthening as we march into the ramifications of peak oil and associated impacts on natural gas prices since natural gas prices track oil price trends quite closely) – this isn’t a very good bet either.

All that said, a D+ bad bet is alot better than a F no bet at all. Bring on WM-DD and lets gets moving – we are out of time.

Offsets, indulgences, and a cheap fine for CO2 emissions are not good features. Waxman-Markey may not be da bomb, but it is certainly da dud.

I wonder about the assumptions behind this happy prediction, which are said to be “a tad opaque.” A little more looking under the hood might be in order.

Hansen regards this approach as a “Temple of Doom”. Anybody listening?

We already possess the power to increase efficiencies yet we’re sitting around while the last few grains of sand run out, AND while compromising with the largest corporate emitters.

Jeeze, get real and put down the pom-poms– such a sanguine appraisal of a failed legislative approach to what is really needed makes me wonder if the precautionary principle means anything on this site.

[JR: Please explain cap and trades failures to date. Please distinguish those imagined failures from the actual failures of target setting and political leadership.]