Gas alert as demand and prices rise

[biffvernon]

We're all culpable in that respect, surely?

Of course. But in this supply constrained world, if an individual stops buying and burning fossil fuel, it allows others to enter the market, buy and burn. Prime responsibility for global warming has to rest on those who extract the carbon from under the ground and those legislators who make this work legal.

The fossil fuel industry does not have to pay for its pollution and thus, by externalising this cost, receives a catastrophically large hidden subsidy. Don't expect a global warming denier to acknowledge this.

(AFAIK windfarms don't have batteries!)

[JavaScriptDonkey]

We're all culpable in that respect, surely?

Of course. But in this supply constrained world, if an individual stops buying and burning fossil fuel, it allows others to enter the market, buy and burn. Prime responsibility for global warming has to rest on those who extract the carbon from under the ground and those legislators who make this work legal.

The fossil fuel industry does not have to pay for its pollution and thus, by externalising this cost, receives a catastrophically large hidden subsidy. Don't expect a global warming denier to acknowledge this.

(AFAIK windfarms don't have batteries!)

That's a remarkably convenient way to avoid personal responsibility.

I suspect the motivation for blaming the 'industry' is a two pronged effort to lobby for increased cash subsidy for uneconomic renewables and to attract support by creating a mythical 'them' to blame.

Both attempts are thin.

[biffvernon]

That's a remarkably convenient way to avoid personal responsibility.

Yes, it allows one too drive gas-guzzling fast cars and fly to holidays in the sun in the sure knowledge that one is making no difference to global warming. Ethically it is, of course, complete tosh, which is why I don't do those sort of things.

Instead I campaign for carbon reduction at source, stopping the stuff getting out of the ground. Working on the supply side is likely to be more effective than on the demand side, getting folk to consume less.

Of course this will all be meaningless drivel in the eyes of global warming deniers.

[Little John]

That's a remarkably convenient way to avoid personal responsibility.

Yes, it allows one too drive gas-guzzling fast cars and fly to holidays in the sun in the sure knowledge that one is making no difference to global warming. Ethically it is, of course, complete tosh, which is why I don't do those sort of things.

Instead I campaign for carbon reduction at source, stopping the stuff getting out of the ground. Working on the supply side is likely to be more effective than on the demand side, getting folk to consume less.

Of course this will all be meaningless drivel in the eyes of global warming deniers.

Yes, it has to be on the supply side.

To expect it to be on the demand side is to expect consumers to deliberately make the most costly choice in a game of prisoner's dilemma. They are simply not going to do that. Which leaves only a few other choices for policy makers;

1) Constrain the supply side and leave the demand side alone. Then let the market push out those who can't afford the resource whose supply is being constrained. Grossly inequitable but would, in principle, work as long as the haves are prepared to build very high walls to keep the have-nots at bay.

2) Constrain the supply side and equitably constrain the demand side (rationing, in other words). This would also require price controls.

3) Do nothing.

Now, I know that JSD's response is likely to be that the second of the above two policies, being controlled by politicians, will be a virtually unworkable dog's breakfast of inefficiency and unintended consequences and he''d be right.

But, the alternative of standing by while everyone plays their own individual game of prisoner's dilemma all the way to the edge of the cliff of resource depletion and environmental collapse and then over it (3), will be an environmental disaster. And the alternative of only constraining supply and allowing huge swathes of the population to be priced out of the marketplace (1) will be a social and political disaster.

So, the least worst option has to be (2), no matter how difficult to implement.

What we'll probably get, of course, is a combination of (1) and (3) because the people managing the country are cowards/greedy bastards and/or serve cowards/greedy bastards.

[woodburner]

That's a remarkably convenient way to avoid personal responsibility.

Yes, it allows one too drive gas-guzzling fast cars and fly to holidays in the sun in the sure knowledge that one is making no difference to global warming. Ethically it is, of course, complete tosh, which is why I don't do those sort of things.

Instead I campaign for carbon reduction at source, stopping the stuff getting out of the ground. Working on the supply side is likely to be more effective than on the demand side, getting folk to consume less.

Of course this will all be meaningless drivel in the eyes of global warming deniers.

That reply would have been so much more effective without the last sentence/paragraph.

[kenneal - lagger]

A national insulation scheme starting with Housing Association houses and people in fuel poverty first would go a long way to alleviating problems over fuel costs.

[vtsnowedin]

[ Working on the supply side is likely to be more effective than on the demand side, getting folk to consume less.
.

Not likely to produce the desired result. Restricting supply will only raise the price forcing consumers to seek alternatives but if none are available they will consume as much as before and reduce other less gratifying consumption.

[kenneal - lagger]

Depends how high the price goes!

[biffvernon]

Working on the supply side is likely to be more effective than on the demand side, getting folk to consume less.

Not likely to produce the desired result. Restricting supply will only raise the price forcing consumers to seek alternatives but if none are available they will consume as much as before and reduce other less gratifying consumption.

Restricting supply prevents consumers from consuming as much as before, whatever the price. That's what restricting supply means. Forcing consumers to seek alternatives is just fine.

I'm not saying it's likely to work but it's better to pursue the unlikely than the impossible.

[vtsnowedin]

Working on the supply side is likely to be more effective than on the demand side, getting folk to consume less.

Not likely to produce the desired result. Restricting supply will only raise the price forcing consumers to seek alternatives but if none are available they will consume as much as before and reduce other less gratifying consumption.

Restricting supply prevents consumers from consuming as much as before, whatever the price. That's what restricting supply means. Forcing consumers to seek alternatives is just fine.

I'm not saying it's likely to work but it's better to pursue the unlikely than the impossible.

I see little need for artificially restricting supply. After all it will soon restrict itself on a per capita basis either from a post peak decline in production or just rising human population outstripping supply. Better start working on your alternatives. Now and avoid the rush.

[emordnilap]

After all it will soon restrict itself on a per capita basis either from a post peak decline in production or just rising human population outstripping supply.

You are an optimist. Things do not appear to be heading in that direction.

[clv101]

I see little need for artificially restricting supply. After all it will soon restrict itself on a per capita basis either from a post peak decline in production or just rising human population outstripping supply. Better start working on your alternatives. Now and avoid the rush.

Little need? We are very rapidly burning through the carbon budget associated with +2C of warming. From what we now know about the effectiveness of attempting to restrict demand (it really doesn't work), there seems to be a strong need for artificially restricting supply.

Four things can happen:

• 1. We can burn all economically recoverable carbon - causing dangerous climate change.
  2. We can mitigate emissions through demand control.
  3. We can mitigate emissions through supply control.
  4. We can find some clever way to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

First point is unacceptable. Second point doesn't seem to work as any demand side policy will only have partial adoption leaving the other areas/cohorts to "take up the slack". The fourth point is unlikely to be economically/technically possible. Which leaves supply side control. Now we are in a supply-side dominated fossil fuel market, the inevitable partial adoption doesn't matter. Cap/reduce supply in one part of the world and other areas won't be able to make up the shortfall - the partial cap becomes a real global cap.

[biffvernon]

Which is why, having done the global thinking, I'm acting locally to prevent hydrocarbons being extracted from my neck of the woods.

Take a look at this stuff about Biscathorpe, in Lincolnshire: http://transitiontownlouth.org.uk/frack.html

If I can help prevent oil and gas being produced from this site I'll have done more to mitigate global warming than all the light bulb changes in the world.

And if everybody did the same in their own corner... job's a good'n.

Sadly, it will probably all be scuppered by the global warming deniers, life will become nasty, brutish and short, and then cease altogether.

[emordnilap]

Good stuff on that site, Biff. I can use some of it over here.

A small criticism: there are spelling and grammatical errors and words missing. I'm sure you agree you have to do the best you possibly can when presenting your material, for careless errors even put forgiving people off.

Also, Alan Tootill's contribution is currently dated a month in the future.

[biffvernon]

It's a work in progress. Please give chapter and verse on typos.