Both business lobbies and those who argue for waiting for the world are fond of privileging market based solutions over all others, and indeed “skeptics” and denialists claim that those who warn of the consequences of global warming are attached to central planning.

Indeed.
.
It’s interesting how discussion of policies and habits pertinent to sustaining modern civilization by not destroying its ecological basis have been sucked into the theological grindstone of 19th and 20th century ideological conflict. If people in general had paid heed to the ecological price a little contemplation told us that we would have to pay way back in the late 40s market solutions wouldn’t be the default preference as they are today. Then it was Keynes not Friedman who was the Economic Guru and being a socialist was acceptable (communist not really).
.
Would the solutions’ve been better?
.
I don’t know. The socialist agenda also put a high value on industrial production and growth so the left once upon a time was just as inclined to pooh-pooh ‘Malthusian’ fear as the right. Nowadays the left almost universally endorses the AGW hypothesis. Given the defeat of the Soviet system and the roll back of Social Democracy since the 70s many people on the Leninist and non-Leninist Left have jumped on the environment bandwagon as a new tool to kick Capitalism with.
.
Those sections of the New left whose primary basis is not ‘the victory of the proletariat’ are not included necessarilly in this group (a feminist isn’t necessarilly ‘anti-capitalist’). And of course there is the environmental movement, whose ideological origins are heterogenous and related at least in my experience to associational anarchism, have long seen the impact of the industrial system regardless the ideology as ‘the problem’.
.
Nevertheless it is, I think, true that those agents in political debates who are the main voices of environmental policy favour regulatory solutions.
.
Partially thru the reluctance to accept anything that will hault growth, raise taxation or re-regulate enterprise, partially because the call is a left-wing one, there are people on the right who are almost insanely obtuse about the evidence that our economic success is damaging the environment on a serious and global level. Some argue for market solutions when none are apparent. The trouble with hard-wired ideology is that you tend to assume all sorts of things you shouldn’t. The Sovs assumed they could stop people being selfish for example.
.
I tend to think we should scrap both the default to market-based solutions and the hostility to capitalism in developing environmental responses. Market-based solutions may not be available and even Friedmanites like Arnold Schwarzanegger and John Humphreys attest to this. On the other hand going to war with Capitalism may waste a lot of energy. Ultimately Capitalists live on the planet as well. And private enterprise is very good at something governments are not – creativity.
.
Well except the banks.

BBB

Question for you – where, in your opinion, do we stand on climate change right now? Amber just about to turn red? Or are we in the red already?

Yes, if you want to decarbonize the economy in a great hurry, you could put a carbon tax of $500 per tonne on emissions. Let’s see how long the Economic Purity Party which imposes such a policy lasts in government…

WWII ration books may have not been the economically optimal solution, but I doubt the alternative of just raising the price of everything enough such that only the very rich could afford to buy anything would have been politically possible.

Have you ever heard of ‘the German economic miracle’? Market systems dynamically adjust as fast as the various participants feel they have to. They efficiently distribute information about who wants what across indirectly connected sectors. That’s why economists keep banging on and on about market-based solutions.

Our economy is so heavily reliant on carbon emissions that introducing C&C mechanisms for carbon use is pretty close to introducing C&C for large parts of the economy. It’s well known at this stage that such a thing is, putting it bluntly, a stupid idea.

So yes, we marketdroids are privileging the market. Not because we understand in advance what it will do — we can’t — but because we understand what the alternative can’t and won’t do. To turn old leftist phraseology on its head, climate change is too important to leave to governments.

For those not aware of the Toowoomba Water Recycling saga: Toowoomba, a city built to service the easiest Range Crossing in N-NSW & SE Qld, is in the 750mm per year rain belt and has no natural above-ground water (but some bore water). It and areas c70Ks or so to the north & west are serviced by three dams, all 30-50Ks north of T, the last built in the 1970s. There is no other suitable dam site. Since then, there has been a population explosion, esp in “dormitory” towns to the north & west. In addition, old dairying land with access to the water pipeline was converted to “tree-changer” acreage, intensive flower & some fruit farming – some in-ground, some hydroponic.

Dams were last full in 1998. The last good rain fell in the dam areas in Feb 01. In a normally cool area, summers from 2000 onwards were blazing and most winters very warm. Water restrictions slowed usage; but by 2005 the situation was dire & Council investigated possible solutions, inc: other dam sites, piping from local bores; piping in from Artesian basin and/ or coal-seam gas water, and water-recycling. Although bores, Artesian & coal-seam gas water could provide some water, only water-recycling provided a long-term viable option if dams were low. Reports on these investigations are available http://www.toowoombawater.com.au/home/

Intensive exploration of OS water-recycling, esp of new “reverse osmosis” processes in Singapore & California, made this the best option. The plan, though controversial, was passed by Council whose Mayor, Di Thorley, was ALP … so the issue rapidly became political. Local fed member Ian McFarlane was originally supportive. Opposition to recycling was led by National Cr Lyle Shelton (would stand, unsuccessfully, for the ALP_held state electorate of Toowoomba North) & the no-campaign bankrolled mainly by former Nat minister millionaire local developer Clive Berghofer. McFarlane rapidly wussed it & Howard made Federal funding subject to a referendum.

Held on 29 July 2006, the result was overwhelmingly “No” (over 60%). http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001511.html

2006 continued dry. In early 2007, dam water levels fell below 11%. Rain during 07-08 barely kept the dam levels above 11%. Public opinion began to turn, and was running against the anti-recycling candidates by the time of March 2008 elections for the new Regional Council. Just before the election Premier Bligh announced that Toowoomba dams would be linked into the SE Qld recycling water-grid, including Brisbane’s Wivenhoe by pipeline. In the election, anti-recycling candidates were thrashed (c11.3% of the mayoral vote).

On 9 July 2008, recycling, and connection to Wivenhoe was a done deal; so much so that, according to The Chronicle, even Berghofer had stopped fighting it. A report on the 9 July announcement is here. http://www.toowoombarc.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=944:toowoomba-regional-council-welcomes-wivenhoe-pipeline-project&catid=9:newspublications&Itemid=21

Currently, dams have dropped to 10.5%; we’re also using local “harder than industrial diamonds” bore water (leaves copper blue & brown stains on toilet despite cleaning) Artesian & Coal-seam-gas water will add to our “water-grid”, probably even after Wivenhoe water (to which Brisbane’s recycled water is added) reaches here.

Meanwhile, the very day SA protestors were all over Sunday’s national news, Anna Bligh laid the last part of the Gold Coast-Wivenhoe water-exchange pipeline (A$901 million), and the sea-cocks were opened on the Gold Coast desalination plant. Several months ago, Brisbane industrial-strength grey-water reached the Tarong Powerhouse (near Kingaroy). Reverse-osmosis purified recycled water will be pumped into Wivenhoe in 2009.

It all costs a packet – many $$ billions – but there really is no other way to assure long-term water supply for rapidly expanding SE Qld (esp the dry Toowoomba Region). Even if we get a string of very wet summers (it will take Noah’s flood to fill our dams) the population keeps expanding and frequent droughts will still occur.

It took a mere 19 months for 60+% “NO” to recycling on 29 July 2006 to became a 11% vote for the anti-recycling Mayoral candidate in March 2008 – in Australia’s most conservative city by far.

All it takes is the Will to recycle and what ex-premier Pete Beattie called an Armageddon situation

As I have posted many times on many other forums, the monopoly situation hit home here when the privately run water retailer here announced price hikes of between 300% and 1200%. The problem was not too little water – rather, it was FAR too much. The resevoir was full but the biggest customers had slashed their consumption and the private monopoly holder was determined that ordinary residents would make up the shortfall in it’s margin. From memory, they actualy issued a press release stating that “people needed to understand that water was a business and business must turn a profit”.

So…………….where else were we going to get our water from? We couldn’t refuse to use the stuff in protest.

Nahh, market based solutions are no solution when it comes to vital services like water supply.

Re market solutions – they’ll work with systems in the green zone. They can work when conditions are amber if well designed and mature.

But you won’t get a market solution, an immature one at that, to work when it’s two seconds to midnight, you’ve got bodies everywhere and one band-aid.