We have with the atmosphere what can be called common pool resources – like a forest, a fishery or an aquifer. We have 3 choices. The first is for governments to step in and tax carbon sourced energy out of existence. The second is to manage resources co-operatively – a way that is much more efficient and effective than governments assuming market failures and stepping in with a bureaucratic solution. The third choice is to determine that the risk is minor and the cost of option 2 is too great to contemplate – so we do nothing. The emissions are minor in the context of global carbon fluxes, the temperature changes are both minor when compared with natural variability both in scope and speed and overwhelmingly the result of other causes and there being no change in ocean pH because the system is buffered and there are huge sources of available calcium. We are nowhere near the limits of the atmosphere or the oceans – it is nowhere near a tragedy.
We would perhaps be willing contemplate pragmatic programs. ‘This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures — three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.’
‘The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.
The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.’
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/07/climate_pragmatism_innovation.shtml
The major reason for not progressing on the pragmatic options is still that a battle is being fought on option 1 – a battle that will continue. I don’t need to be a time traveller to know that the Australian Labor Party/Greens alliance is utterly doomed along with the carbon tax. They will go the way of their Queensland colleagues. The pity is the great waste of time, energy and goodwill.