Here's a short jab at the state of America, which I feel could be said to be a slightly exaggerated version of Australia.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
An iPhone App that needs writing.
If you read this article and you have an iPhone you may be rather concerned about someone else coming into possession of your personal information. Now, I dont really know, but I imagine, rather I hope, that the iPhone has a locking code option so that if you want some extra security you can configure it to request a password each time you want to bring it out of sleep mode. Most phones have this, and most people dont use it because it is a pain to have to type a code every time you want to recieve a txt or make a phone call. The iPhone however has its fabulous touch screen and accelerometer, what if you can use these to make an unlock sequence of actions...! This could make the lock/unlock experience a lot more safe than the current 'swipe bar.'
If this is a little far out for you, then how about a simple fingerprint or facial recognition lock using the camera...? Lots of ways to avoid the code, which on a touch screen is even more annoying.
If this is a little far out for you, then how about a simple fingerprint or facial recognition lock using the camera...? Lots of ways to avoid the code, which on a touch screen is even more annoying.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
US$165m in aid from Britain to Bangladesh
So why the cash?
For a view on the extent of damage possible due to rising sea levels, check out the Sea Level Rise Explorer from globalwarmingalert.com and head over Bangladesh's way. That red and yellow bit (that takes up the majority of the country) is the home turf of over 150 million people and it is entirely possible that this area will be under water by the end of this century.
For an excellent article summarising a pair of well researched books on the effects on and of climate change, check out Comment by Robert Manne in The Monthly
Bangladesh is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change. Experts say it is experiencing more rainfall, flooding and droughts, as well as cyclones as a direct result of global warming.
Alexander [Britain's International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander] said the new 75 million pound (93 million euro, 130 million dollar) aid pledge would help Bangladesh "protect its people further from impacts such as rising sea-levels, water-logged land and increased salinity." Yahoo News
For a view on the extent of damage possible due to rising sea levels, check out the Sea Level Rise Explorer from globalwarmingalert.com and head over Bangladesh's way. That red and yellow bit (that takes up the majority of the country) is the home turf of over 150 million people and it is entirely possible that this area will be under water by the end of this century.
For an excellent article summarising a pair of well researched books on the effects on and of climate change, check out Comment by Robert Manne in The Monthly
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Equitable Emissions Trading Scheme v2.1
My 2nd ETS theory. Bizarrely again in all my reading on the subject, I've not come across such a scheme as this one either.
Each and every tax paying citizen* is transferred an equal quota of carbon credits into a carbon credit account, the total initial amount may be decided on by a transparent panel of scientists and economists or the government, or even an independent federal reserve like body.
Each person can sell whatever portion of this quota they wish to on an open market at the going rate. Businesses and government buy the credits to spend on carbon emission permits, issued by an independent, lawfully accountable body required to stay on track towards a target. It is the extra cost of purchasing these credits that eventually filters down to the public, allowing price to be a deterrent from carbon intensive purchases.
To work out how much the initial quota may be we could look at the most recently acknowledged total co2 equivalent emissions expelled in Australia which is 576,035,430 tonnes in 2006 (Kyoto Accounting, Dept of Climate Change). If we say that 1 credit = 1 tonne of said emissions, then divide that by our tax paying population. The initial cost of an emission permit is 1 carbon credit for 1 tonne of emissions.
The credits, when handed back to the governing body in return for permits, are then automatically distributed evenly into the accounts of the population at the end of each day of trading. These redistributed credits however are restricted from sale for 365 days (366 on a leap year). The possibility of too many members of the public sitting on their credits and not selling would be a massive problem to the economy. Creating a one year expiry date from the date of distribution is I believe a worthy encouragement to negate this harmful possibility. Since the aim of an E.T.S. is to reduce emissions over a period of time by way of market influence, the governing body increasing the cost of a permit will inflate the worth of each carbon credit.
For example, say by 2030 we want to be producing 40% less emissions than we're currently emitting. Each year we gradually change the cost of a permit until by 2030, 1 carbon credit pays for 0.6 tonnes of emission.
If we are to design this system with the aim to be part of a future global carbon emission reduction scheme, we would direct our reduction target towards an equitable figure. This figure would be measured on a per capita basis. We'll use 1990 because that's the yard stick that Kyoto uses. In 1990, the world population was about 5.26 billion people, and produced 21,563,000,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses. That's equal to 4.1 tonne per person. Australia had a population of 17 million in 1990 and emissions of 543,200,000 tonnes. That is equal to about 32 tonnes per person. This figure I assume is before our carbon sinks (bush, rain forrests, etc) are accounted for as the US Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC) puts us at 16.2 tonnes per person in 1990, and 16.3 tonnes per person in 2004.
Say the world leaders get together and decide that they need to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels together and then continue to reduce even more, and to be completely ethical about it, it has to be measured on a per-capita basis. There will need to be some serious adjustments to the energy inequality humanity currently faces. Essentially, to be entirely ethical, when we talk of emissions targets, we should be talking in targets of emissions per capita. The change of the climate that is caused by pollution is everybody's responsibility.
In this respect, if we are to have a target of 15.5 tonnes per person in year 2 of the Equitable ETS described above, then the cost of the permits would have to change to (15.5/16.2=0.957)tonnes per carbon credit. And so on until we reach 4.1 tonnes per person where emission permits would be at (4.1/16.2=0.253)tonnes of co2 equivalent per carbon credit. If this reduction process was a calculated and gradual one, then it would be easier for businesses to understand what is in store for the future economically and can plan/invest for it.
Ideally, it would be great if all nations were put on notice that they must achieve 4.1 tonnes or less per capita by say 2025. Countries like China will likely be more encouraged to join this system because they still have a little way to go, and may be able to slow their massive increases over recent years. They're currently at about 3.9 tonnes per capita. The huge job that western nations have before them would be encouraging for China and India.
If governments around the world were given a portion of the total co2 credits which reflected their population right now, and we all would have to trade for the right to pollute, this would be a massive upset of the balance of power around the world. If we planned to open the world's carbon markets in 2025, when all countries have been warned and have had ample time to restructure, then the shock would be lessened and equality would prevail.
*Of course this theory is entirely open to discussion, however I am particularly keen to hear from anyone who has any thoughts on who should be given the carbon credits, be it everyone (baby -> deathbed), taxpayers only, 18+...? I dont know. Thoughts? I chose taxpayers because it would be easier to keep them accountable, with less room for corruption of the system.
Each and every tax paying citizen* is transferred an equal quota of carbon credits into a carbon credit account, the total initial amount may be decided on by a transparent panel of scientists and economists or the government, or even an independent federal reserve like body.
Each person can sell whatever portion of this quota they wish to on an open market at the going rate. Businesses and government buy the credits to spend on carbon emission permits, issued by an independent, lawfully accountable body required to stay on track towards a target. It is the extra cost of purchasing these credits that eventually filters down to the public, allowing price to be a deterrent from carbon intensive purchases.
To work out how much the initial quota may be we could look at the most recently acknowledged total co2 equivalent emissions expelled in Australia which is 576,035,430 tonnes in 2006 (Kyoto Accounting, Dept of Climate Change). If we say that 1 credit = 1 tonne of said emissions, then divide that by our tax paying population. The initial cost of an emission permit is 1 carbon credit for 1 tonne of emissions.
The credits, when handed back to the governing body in return for permits, are then automatically distributed evenly into the accounts of the population at the end of each day of trading. These redistributed credits however are restricted from sale for 365 days (366 on a leap year). The possibility of too many members of the public sitting on their credits and not selling would be a massive problem to the economy. Creating a one year expiry date from the date of distribution is I believe a worthy encouragement to negate this harmful possibility. Since the aim of an E.T.S. is to reduce emissions over a period of time by way of market influence, the governing body increasing the cost of a permit will inflate the worth of each carbon credit.
For example, say by 2030 we want to be producing 40% less emissions than we're currently emitting. Each year we gradually change the cost of a permit until by 2030, 1 carbon credit pays for 0.6 tonnes of emission.
If we are to design this system with the aim to be part of a future global carbon emission reduction scheme, we would direct our reduction target towards an equitable figure. This figure would be measured on a per capita basis. We'll use 1990 because that's the yard stick that Kyoto uses. In 1990, the world population was about 5.26 billion people, and produced 21,563,000,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses. That's equal to 4.1 tonne per person. Australia had a population of 17 million in 1990 and emissions of 543,200,000 tonnes. That is equal to about 32 tonnes per person. This figure I assume is before our carbon sinks (bush, rain forrests, etc) are accounted for as the US Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC) puts us at 16.2 tonnes per person in 1990, and 16.3 tonnes per person in 2004.
Say the world leaders get together and decide that they need to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels together and then continue to reduce even more, and to be completely ethical about it, it has to be measured on a per-capita basis. There will need to be some serious adjustments to the energy inequality humanity currently faces. Essentially, to be entirely ethical, when we talk of emissions targets, we should be talking in targets of emissions per capita. The change of the climate that is caused by pollution is everybody's responsibility.
In this respect, if we are to have a target of 15.5 tonnes per person in year 2 of the Equitable ETS described above, then the cost of the permits would have to change to (15.5/16.2=0.957)tonnes per carbon credit. And so on until we reach 4.1 tonnes per person where emission permits would be at (4.1/16.2=0.253)tonnes of co2 equivalent per carbon credit. If this reduction process was a calculated and gradual one, then it would be easier for businesses to understand what is in store for the future economically and can plan/invest for it.
Ideally, it would be great if all nations were put on notice that they must achieve 4.1 tonnes or less per capita by say 2025. Countries like China will likely be more encouraged to join this system because they still have a little way to go, and may be able to slow their massive increases over recent years. They're currently at about 3.9 tonnes per capita. The huge job that western nations have before them would be encouraging for China and India.
If governments around the world were given a portion of the total co2 credits which reflected their population right now, and we all would have to trade for the right to pollute, this would be a massive upset of the balance of power around the world. If we planned to open the world's carbon markets in 2025, when all countries have been warned and have had ample time to restructure, then the shock would be lessened and equality would prevail.
*Of course this theory is entirely open to discussion, however I am particularly keen to hear from anyone who has any thoughts on who should be given the carbon credits, be it everyone (baby -> deathbed), taxpayers only, 18+...? I dont know. Thoughts? I chose taxpayers because it would be easier to keep them accountable, with less room for corruption of the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Quotes:
