I reinterate how do you measure what doesnât exists? >It's hardly likely the government will keep allowing dodgy credits to flood the country. But then follow this up with an item about crops in Britain, using the phrase "up to Hadrian's Wall", is to employ a glaring a-historicism of the first order. There is very little academic work done on the RCO, so I cannot confirm or deny, but the MWP was universal yet at different times. Happy to debate that question, but its a distraction from this one. That and other literary fragments from the time con… But under (B) we at least get either accredited imports or a floor price to pick off the dodgiest credits. That would be with the free permits which undermine the very incentive that was supposed to drive the change. I note that you fail to notice my comment on that issue so I'll write it again: You your self related the intangible nature of ETS to regulating money. Labor presented their legislation, the Greens said we don't like it; Bob Brown offered numerous times to negotiate with Rudd... Rudd ignored them. Complex questions, but it seems in this case either way we're beggers to another power. not a paraphrase, but quote the Latin or Greek that they wrote and indicate the edition this quote is from). I grew up near Hadrian's wall. The Hadrian’s Wall landscape around here is relatively unchanged since Roman occupation. Exactly what carbon price have the Greens achieved? Chris - "Ultimately The Greens and Abbot voted for exactly the same thing - no real action on climate change.". A fraction more might begin to wonder if "maybe climate change isnât the worst thing"? "Sea level was lower during the Roman Climate Optimum, when temperatures were higher.". "Besides, didn't the nudey and blue Picts stop the rather DA is definitely more dishonest than EG and on the level of Brent IMO. Positioning with the Greens was absolutely pointless because they couldn't win the vote. If you want to look at it this way then free permits do not shield them from the lost opportunity cost of selling those permits. As for wine as proxy for temp, the varieties grown in burgundy/champagne are the same as was grown during the MWP, they could regularly grow table wine in champagne then, but would still struggle now except for the warmest of vintages. Ahem! What most concerns me though is that in the end our political 'pragmatism' might be accompanied by the tune of a fiddle being played from the smouldering ruins of a climatic Rome. Huh? Human history shows that we don't deal well with times of climate upheaval. You also failed to address the logic that cheap unaccredited (rort prone) import permits plus free permits to the biggest polluters combine to undermine change in the biggest polluters. They tell me Abbott was right http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/gullible-rudd-steps-right-in-it/. A [Greens perspective](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2010/05/17/the-smoking-gun-labor-alwa…) relavent to a recent [in house debate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm…): >The governmentâs hope of clinging to any remaining climate credibility relies on pretending that it was the Greens who were intractable, not them. I grew up in central Massachusetts, west of Worcester, where Winters are quite cold - quite a bit colder than the British Isles. By the 1st Century BC, Roman scribes record little snow and ice and that vineyards and olive groves extended northwards in Italy. Etymology is a tricky thing. It's not as though the continents just bumped into one another then (to cause a sudden subduction or something) and, to my knowledge, it's not as though they've stopped running into one another since then. Even if there were more stringent regulations, "How can you control this, how can you check up on someone selling an intangible credit from Belgium to Denmark to Paris even with more rules?". Warming started about 250 BC and was enjoyed by the Greeks and Romans. If you think I have ignored a substantive point please raise it, as I re-raised points that I believed you had not addressed. The only "evidence" you provided for corruption that occurs with an ETS is tax evasion (what a new and impossible to deal with phenomenom that is) of a completely unnecessary tax. Part 3-the modern age from 1700 to today. The head of … Because sometimes our actual sources for information in the Classical world are writing these facts many years - sometimes hundreds of years - after the fact. If changes in agricultural crops and methods appeared in Britain in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., well, my first impulse to assume that's the result of the presence of Roman legions and related social structures, not changes in the climate. BTW Chris instead of suggesting that the police investigating ETS fruad don't understand the problems which they are dealing with, stop to consider that the people looking at this might actually understand it more than you know? Of particular relevance to our debate was the point that in their study "weak action" involves an over reliance on an ETS where: >Australia imports vast amounts of international permits to Chris Iâm not going to address your word games, your claims about hypocrisy, and several other points, other than to say I believe you need re-read my last few posts as you were way off the mark. Wow have you finally woken up to real life? The Greens know this, so there is no point in them siging up for the Labor-Liberal version of the ETS. countries ... As long as the one country has those They have an incentive to get their emissions down so they can sell their permits. Yeah, they tried to make it work alright, by making sure it never came into existence at all. And I agree with [Fran](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm…) - remove the subsidies for fossil fuel energy. Worse still, stateed intentions to emit are not auditable. >>*I repeat how you properly measure something that doesn't exist?*. Money doesn't represent anything physical either but that doesn't stop it from being measurable. Terms of Use An attitude that you imagine based on dismissing the demonstrated rorting. money, and the taxation doesn't need to exist at all. Agnostic - "At least these people take their advisors seriously.". The summers in Rome are usually uncomfortably hot. I advise you would be better off supporting those who are trying to shore up the system again the predictable and experienced problems. The ETS would still have motivated them to reduce their carbon emissions because they could then sell their freed-up permits. BTW, 5% reduction for the whole country by 2020 means 20% reduction PER PERSON by then. Changing the point as usual. There have been increasing reports of dodgy offset schemes around the world. Then they could buy (the cheapest) offsets in a dodgy rort that didn't actual cut any emissions (and their uselessness is the precise reason why they were the cheapest offsets). After engaging with the three I'd put Andrews has worse than el gordo. The cynic in me says that's pretty much always been the case, with only minor exceptions throughout history :-(. Absolutely zilch. Sure. "2 to 6°C warmer" would certainly qualify as "considerably warmer", but as he commonly does, Plimer provides no cite to support his claims. Steve Reuland @21 -- yeah, I'm specifically asking about how Plimer can use the African and European continents colliding to say something about sea level 2,000 yrs ago. This is all done in the hope of a weak target based on 2000 emission levels, so then hopefully in 5 or 10 years the government says to the public, how about we crank up this overcostly, poor performing, rort ridden piece of junk a bit further. What are you gonno do when they get nasty? The irony being that the person saying this prefers a system (carbon tax) with a lower economic efficiency than the alternative (ETS). And research into those smart film windows start to tickle the investors fancy. >the CPRS as it stands would unleash a wave of investment in coal. Indeed amphora sherds are routinely excavated at Roman sites. It says: "While there is a need for carbon market offsets". I don't see a downside to this. Your error is to only tackle one partially solved superficial example rather than the underlying structural problems. >Under the (A) your strategy of whacking the Greens we get [unaccredited permits] and no floor price on permits, and keep subsidising Al. The recurring issue, which doesn't mean our trashed-by-the-Greens-and-Tony-Abbott ETS won't work is simply that HFC-23 generation is unregulated in many countries. You can also shop using Amazon Smile and though you pay nothing more we get a tiny something. But what of the time before the Romans arrived? They wanted more. We are part of Science 2.0, a science education nonprofit operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Strange you are pointing to the EC report on the fraudulent nature of ETS schemes when a few posts back you were more or less denying that they were a problem:-). Well, scienceblogs is shutting down at the end of the month. Or is it in fact just a matter of one rule for the rich and another for the average joe and jane in the 'burbs? money, and the taxation doesn't need to exist at all. >>*In a market flooded with dodgy credits,*. And it WILL happen. I'm tired of "sceptics" making ignorant comments like "I'm a bit tired of hearing ignorant comments which single out one factor, such as CO2 density, and exclude all the others."