While I agree that we have an energy problem – our modern society and way of life depends on an abundant supply of relatively cheap energy – and that part of the solution to the problem will be found in technological innovation focused on finding efficiencies, I do take issue with the way you've framed some of your comments above.

The relationship between GHG's and climate change is well established from thousands of independent, peer-reviewed research and data sets. There is an upper limit to safe levels of GHGs in our atmosphere and we are close to the breaking point. As you've said in some of our conversations on the matter, “we've been using our atmosphere like a garbage dump.”

Further, a temperature change of greater than 2 degrees past 1990 levels could be devastating to the global economy. So that leads us to two points: we need to put a price on carbon via a system like cap and trade (or, as I would prefer, a straight up carbon tax) and we need to have the administrative capacity (or more pejoratively “bureaucracy”) to measure the GHGs we are limiting. A price on carbon will ensure that we put market forces to work for us – a price signal will help spur the innovation you make reference to.

So yes, efficiency is a problem, but the potentially drastic geopolitical consequences of climate change (war, famines, waves of refugees, unpredictable weather, etc.) are a better motivator to act, for me at least.

In the end, this is a simple risk calculation.

Btw, riding at Louise was pretty good too.

Innovation, leaps in technology and using energy more efficiently is the only way path if we wish to maintain and perhaps improve everyone's quality of life.

We need to invest our scarce $$ wisely. Cap and trade schemes and bureaucracy will ensure $$ are wasted.

I'm interested to see what will come out of copenhagen.

btw Panorama was great this weekend

cheers

While I agree that we have an energy problem – our modern society and way of life depends on an abundant supply of relatively cheap energy – and that part of the solution to the problem will be found in technological innovation focused on finding efficiencies, I do take issue with the way you've framed some of your comments above.

The relationship between GHG's and climate change is well established from thousands of independent, peer-reviewed research and data sets. There is an upper limit to safe levels of GHGs in our atmosphere and we are close to the breaking point. As you've said in some of our conversations on the matter, “we've been using our atmosphere like a garbage dump.”

Further, a temperature change of greater than 2 degrees past 1990 levels could be devastating to the global economy. So that leads us to two points: we need to put a price on carbon via a system like cap and trade (or, as I would prefer, a straight up carbon tax) and we need to have the administrative capacity (or more pejoratively “bureaucracy”) to measure the GHGs we are limiting. A price on carbon will ensure that we put market forces to work for us – a price signal will help spur the innovation you make reference to.

So yes, efficiency is a problem, but the potentially drastic geopolitical consequences of climate change (war, famines, waves of refugees, unpredictable weather, etc.) are a better motivator to act, for me at least.

In the end, this is a simple risk calculation.

Btw, riding at Louise was pretty good too.

Innovation, leaps in technology and using energy more efficiently is the only way path if we wish to maintain and perhaps improve everyone's quality of life.

We need to invest our scarce $$ wisely. Cap and trade schemes and bureaucracy will ensure $$ are wasted.

I'm interested to see what will come out of copenhagen.

btw Panorama was great this weekend

cheers