absolute GHG emissions are still increasing even with increasing efficiency (see Jevon's Paradox)

No, see "Population Growth".

"According to the released data, the joint emissions of the industrialized countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol were 15.3% below the 1990 level in 2004"

I hardly think that this demonstrates that Kyoto or actions by government are hopeless. Policies do matter. The United States, however, has increased its co2 emissions since 1990 by almost 20%. Overall GHG emissions, as noted above, increased by more than 15%. The U.S. failed to sign up to Kyoto and it has refused to implement significant policies, such as higher gas taxes, to decrease emissions.

The issue, for now, isn't whether there are practical alternatives to fossil fues; the issue is that there is a lot of low hanging fruit out there with respect to efficiency, conservation, and a change in consumer behavior. These are all impacted by government policy.

While you are entitled to your personal opinion, it is not based upon the facts but based upon what you want to believe about government policy.

Look at Germany. The German government has made a concerted effort to encourage alternatives like solar and wind and encourage conservation. These policies have paid off and are a direct result of government policy, not magic.

The performance by the U.S. is to be expected because it has feckless leadership that has spent most of its time in office in denial about global warming. Promising alternatives like hydrogen does nothing to address the problem, which is right now.

When nations see that you can have an expanding economy and reduce CO2, then we might make some progress.

Ed.

Quite right. It is our ultimate consumption as the end consumer that makes much of the difference. On the other hand, however, are we not responsible for the co2 from products that we export? This just points up the fact that carbon needs to be taxed at all stages of production with the cost of the tax being passed on at each stage.

To the extent that China, for example, is able to produce cheaper goods because it uses cheaper coal to produce them, this gives it another competitive advantage which should be remedied by taxes. If it refuses to sign up to an international framework which requires this, then countries should impose these carbon taxes as another form of duty. Same logic applies to other environmental and other social regulations which drive up the cost of goods.

The one thing that can massively reduce emissions gets almost no attention: replace coal with nuclear. Every other measure is either expensive or coercive, and coal produces a good 50% or more of most countries emissions.

Nuclear power economics:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

As for reserves of uranium being on the decline, consider we have about 1 trillion tons of uranium recoverable from shales to the high grade ores in todays mines, well enough to run 20000 light water reactors in the once through process for 25000 years. When you incorporate thorium in liquid flouride reactors, then we have about 1/4 of a billion years of fuel left.

Discounting nuclear, which is really the only alternative capable of displacing coal today, is simply naive. If Germany doesnt recind the nuclear phase out, they'll either break all of their kyoto commitments or import vast amounts of nuclear electricity from France.

Rafael:

That kind of investment should come from the private sector, not taxation. What government can do is provide incentives to develop new technology, then step out of the way and let the market go to work.

plz:

If others can advocate their solutions, why can't I advocate mine?

There's a real objective source. :

If you want to come up with any cites that show anything besides coal being able to compete with nuclear on scalability and cost for baseload, be my guest. Hydro doesnt scale up as much, natural gas has huge fuel price dependancy, wind is capital intensive and requires load levelling. Solar is vastly more expensive and unreliable for most of the country.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4457210.stm

The real cost of nuclear per kw is all tied up in the capital. So if the licencing process is onerous, the discount rate is high, and/or activists tie up the capital in legal injunctions several years before the power gets turned on your per kw/hr cost goes way up. If the discount rate is low, the licencing process is streamlined, and the plant gets turned on without interference, its cheaper than any everything else.

If others can advocate their solutions, why can't I advocate mine?

It's not a solution. It's a fantasy. It's also very boring. You speak to people as if they don't grasp the concept. It's a very simple concept, which every single person here is aware of. Certainly someone of Rafael's high intelligence understands it quite well.

What most people do is consider a problem or issue for what it is. There's no catch-all solution to things in life. There isn't. Yet day after day, one sees people who are convinced that if just one thing were adhered to, one thing changed, then all would be right in the world.

Hate of government is just that - hate. It is not rational. Government is made of people. Any institution is. You can no more generalize about government than you can about corporations. There are good governments and there are bad ones. There are good corporations and there are bad ones. There are good people in government. There are bad people in government. There are good people in corporations. There are bad people in corporations. And there's all kinds of gradations in-between (since rarely is something or someone wholly good or bad).

Letting markets solve things can be useful. It can also fail - miserably. Anyone who is paying attention, and certainly anyone who has studied economics (see: externalities) understands this.

Problems and issues of the scale that are discussed here (like climate change) need addressing from many angles. No single actor or approach is going to deal with it. Why does this problem even exist in the first place? Did government create the problem? No, the very "let the forces of the market solve it" approach created the problem. We just let things go, thinking there was no consequence to putting all sorts of things into the atmosphere at very high rates.

Saying all that does not mean that government is the only solution. Lots of people mirror your approach with the thought that every problem can be solved with taxes, or subsidies, or some other kind of force-driven approach. They're equally wrong.

But the bottom line is that I am very confident that everyone here -- or at least particularly the people whose opinions are well-considered and based upon lots of knowledge -- understands the "market forces" angle. The website itself is a testament to how much innovation is going on out there to move things forward. So, it's tone-deaf to keep telling people what they already know, as if they don't.

Each problem and each issue needs to be considered on its own, and creative thought needs to be applied to see what might work. But if one adheres to an inflexible ideological mantra, then most times the best solutions will elude one's perception.

Cervus -

renewables are still too expensive for the private sector to consider them without government subsidies/tax breaks. Sad but true. Transportation fuels may yet prove an exception, because they fetch much higher prices than those used for space heating or electricity generation. It depends on how world oil prices develop.

High taxes on fossil fuels and nuclear waste disposal would prod more private investment in renewable power and energy efficiency, especially if they were balanced by tax cuts elsewhere. That would limit direct expenditure by the government, which you object to. It would also take some major cojones to get that kind of legislation passed over objections by powerful industry lobbies, especially in the US.

C02 per GDP may not be as fair as it seems because, to a large extend, GDP is driven by over consumption of all kinds. The 6000 calories/day 300+ lbs obese with 3 SUV gas guzzlers, 4 TVs, oversized houses, + huge imports etc creates higher GDP than the skinny person + conservation way of life. Oil producing countries + very high comsumption countries like USA with high GDP to GHG ratio would look overly good with this method.

C02 per capita is not too fair either because, to a large extend, it is driven by living standard differences, unfair currency value, very large population etc. China and India would look overly good with such a method.

Properly weighted total GHG may be a better way but a fair method remains to be developed.

Coal power plants produce an unsuitainable high level of CO2 and should be replaced. Capturing the CO2 and sending it to your neighbours IS NOT acceptable.

A mix of Hydro + Sun + Wind + Waves + Nuclear (yes, modern Nuclear power plants) + other alternative clean energies should be able to provide all the energy we need at a resonable price. Large scale electrical energy storage is possible with V2G and multiple EESD such as the Altairnano batteries.

Coal + liquid fosil fuels should be progressively taxed out of existence if we seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions and develop an alternative clean energy economy.