No. Increasing the CO2 from 280ppm to 380ppm with a 3C sensitivity per CO2 doubling gives an ultimate total temperature rise of 1.3C. So far we’ve had a rise of 0.7-0.8C so the remaining rise would be no more than 0.6C.

As far as forcing I think it will be the other way round a few more Katrina’s and large natural disasters and the political leaders will be forced by the people to act. As it is in China they are walking a very fine line, with some commentators saying that officials recognize that even a fall of growth to 6% could cause unrest. Throw in a few natural disasters and it could go below that.

Yes the ancient Romans thought their economic system -where they could rape the environment- would last forever, North Africa proved them wrong. The West has had the whole globe to plunder, it just meant it would take somewhat longer.

Some environmentalists are indeed hard core green but in my opinion they are in the minority, other are more moderate in that we should value both and in fact to safeguard the wellbeing of humanity we have to safeguard the environment if for no other reason that it supplies services and resources we need for survival.

I find you take on Libertarians interesting especially regarding those who see tax as theft and would leave their fellow man to sink or swim

Lastly the only economic work I want to read is when they include pollution externalities.

You do like to put me in a pigeonhole.

I do acceot the science.
I do accept that people are going to have to be forced to change their lifestyle especially when the new lifestyle is more costly and or less convenient.

I do not accept that people being forced can be done without the use of force. That worries me. People in China are not going to be executed (after donating their organs) in order to achieve a better environmental outcome?

When the price of energy goes up áre we are not going to use human muscle more and long distance travel become too expensive for even more people etc etc etc. ?

If being a libertarian means that I empathise with fellow human beings more than I empathise with a human concept (the environment) then I am a libertarian but I much prefer the term human being.

Why for some 400 years has capitalist economic organisation survived competiion with various forms of so called mutual economic organisation? Because it fails to satisfy the economic needs of human beings?
(see Braudel Civilisation and Capitalism).
I promise you ,you will not need the garlic, cross and wooden nails for Braudel although Popper would still be interesting to you if you have yet to read him.

Fact is we’re per capita very heavy emitters. Our offsets can probably done with the least cost to anyone (actually most people think we’d be far more efficient and save money if we reduced emissions).

We’re all in this together. If Australia says “oh no we’re not important” and all the other minor emitters say the same thing, that would add up to a very substantial level of emissions. We cannot just expect India, China, the US and Russia to reduce all of the emissions. The only way you could expect that would be if you had no grasp of politics, human psychology and ethics. Only the most narrow view of rationality would suggest Australia should go without reductions.

Yes

Yes

The other point about the litter was when you need global cooperation or even just from India and China saying we don’t make a difference is a cop out plus ignores the fact we have already been a historical developed polluter.

BTW people don’t like paying the full cost if they get away with for free they will, and unless there are forced many will continue to do so.

Its also about the cost now or larger cost latter take your pick.

I’d first go for a global energy and resource efficiency drive, coupled with sensible lifestyle changes through better design of communities and life style eg not basing our lives around the car.

Technology and financial aid to both India and China, incremental policy changes to switch to the sustainable use of energy and resources – proposals are already being put forward.

Libertarian rhetoric is so obsolete, no I don’t have to shoot people to save elephants or the environment. As I said the old people/jobs vs the environment is so old hat one wonders do you people ever bother to read anything outside your particular square box.

Many modern programs combine economic social and conservation aspects. The Far Trade movement is part of this.

The thing is if you are so big on the market stop distorting it and pay the real cost of your goods and services, the world isn’t an open dump.

Again, why I don’t take many hard core libertarians seriously they don’t even back the win /win of resource efficiency plus they are quite happy to dismiss mainstream science and back fringe lobbyists.

I’m more than happy for instance to see nuclear on the board but let all the facts speak for themselves and accept what the science is telling you.