(There is a boilerplate "assume everyone in the world is acting proportional to their "fair share" of the problem," but defining fair share is a huge problem that cannot be ducked, and the rest of the question ignores that aspect altogether. To be viable, it would have to read what SHOULD PEOPLE DO, not what WOULD YOU DO).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergenera...
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/opinio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
Edit: Okay, Chem, it would be easier to answer the question if it more directly asked what you "basically" want it to ask, but to that: I'd personally being willing to vote for a substantial phased-in revenue-neutral tax on carbon. I don't have the numbers and relations memorized (and the realistic chances of anything like this happening are small) but a doubling of the real price of carbon phased in over 10 years would seem to me entirely doable, and if it were efficiently organized, I'd probably support it. My personal carbon footprint is probably about average, but I'd certainly be encouraged to find ways to conserve and substitute. Below average users could do likewise, while also reaping a financial benefit from the revenue remitted to taxpayers.
Edit2: I don't know the exact cost of fairly-priced carbon, Chem. Nobody does. Nobody knew in advance the exact cost of going to the moon either, or that of fighting Germany and Japan in World War II. People can vote for policies and implement public decisions without having crystal balls. If you want to do the number-crunching guesstimating, you can use my doubling of the real price of carbon in ten years. That is certainly at or above the maximum for what might happen in an extreme scenario of common sense and farsightedness. A realistic scenario would be closer to the current policy of basically doing nothing. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21... I have little worry that I can afford any half-way efficient carbon tax anywhere in the range of zero to the current (untaxed) level of carbon cost (at which extreme the all-in cost would be doubling). With the revenue-neutral rebate, I would have to reduce my carbon footprint by far less than 1/2 in order to break even. Over ten years that is easily doable. Even a doubling of the carbon cost might not be quite enough to keep greenhouse gases below a multi-generationally desirable ceiling, but it would surely make a huge difference over doing nothing.
I do have solar panels.
I don't yet have an electric or hybrid car, but that may change.
I'm hoping that battery technology will improve, now that there is a prospect for considerable demand.
I did live through the water shortage back in the '70s ("if it's brown flush it down, if it's yellow, let it mellow") and did cut back on water use.
At the same time, while driving through west Texas, the lifestyle there was very different.
I used to say that raising gas taxes would be good, but I honestly sympathize with the effect it would have on those folks.
At the same time, I know that gasoline taxes make gasoline twice as expensive in the EU and their economy (Germany, France, etc) seems to be doing fairly well.
The idea that we need to cut the price of gas in order to make our economy recover is wrong.
OH, oh, I know. I'm learning to both be a pilot and a hang glider. Maybe, if I do something really stupid, I'll stop using/wasting energy. ;)
You imply in your question that new technologies used to reduce the causes for global warming will lead to higher prices in goods and services and will increase the costs for households. That is not necessarily the case.
The cost of a more fuel efficient car can be repaid after appr. 5 years with the savings in fuelecosts, that has lead to the situation in Europe that 45 % of all cars sold are diesel powered and they use 15 % less, so no reduction in conveniance.
Germany has a plan to produce 20 % of electric energy by alternative sources by 2020, 50 % by 2030 and 80 % by 2050. That will costs the household appr. 240 $ more per year / 20 $ per month and that is well accepted in Germany. You can reduce your bill by buying more energy efficient appliances (whcih definitely have to be replaced in this period of time).
New houses build after 2020 in the European Union have to be "zero energy" meaning they have a low energy use and might have solar panels which can feed energy into the grid. It is assumed that the coast will be 10 % but over the lifetime of a house the saving in energy will easily pay the investment at the beginning.
The kick is: to build energy saving into the products !
After the oil crisis in 1973 the slogan in Germany was :
Energy saving and Energy efficiency: our best domestic source of energy !
You're looking at it wrong. DECREASING costs would be associated with "fixing" my share of the problem. Waste less electricity, drive less, drive a more gas friendly vehicle, eat more veggies and less meat, buy used clothes-furnature-appliances, live in a smaller-more insulated house, ... All moves that would reduce CO2 output and would save you money. I follow all those ideas and am much better off financially than 90% of the people in this country even though I don't make much above minimum wage and don't take any handouts from govt.
I'm looking to spend around $20,000 on solar hot water heaters and PV panels next year. Should take care of 95% of my heating and power usage, including my electric bike I go most places on.
I am one of the poorer people.
Nothing. Warmth is good.
If it's such a given that it's happening, why should we assume?
Edit:
I did answer. Nothing, the idea is absurd as it is, and I already save as much energy as possible. Why is that so hard for you to understand through all the multiple iterations you've asked of this very same question?
I agree with the premise here are my answers to your questions.
1. People do not have a fair share western countrys use a lot more hydrocarbons, and newly industrialized countries use a lot more.
2.Im an asshole i am not willing to increase spending by a single cent
3. No lifestyle change but i am willing to vote to go to war to increase my standard of living and consumption compared to others.
4.Solar heaters are variable,dont cook uniformly and cook for long periods of time. I only use them when hiking. Im not going to buy biodiesel my engine bump if i used it the burn rate is to fast. I have solar panels for somethings but i would need 3 acers of solar panels and 60 % full sun on them to support my energy needs. ( I calculated this ,- it could pay for itself in 64 years-. ).
5.I really dont care about people more misfortunate than me and i realize that they will probably die from things like flooding, food shortages, heating problems,..etc. But life is unfair and to get something you need to take it from someone else. We have too many people on this planet to support our standard of living in america, thus other people need to live in poverty to have a sustainable system.
Yes I think the US and Europe's carbon footprint should be reduced to the level of the rest of the world,
They should give up vehicles, central heating, air conditioning, washing machines, television, dish washers, and so on, and live like the rest of us do.
I would be prepared to re-use my plastic shopping bags instead of getting new ones.
I would be willing to follow the governments actions.
Assume for the moment, if it is not the case, that you are adequately convinced that global warming 1. is real, 2. is caused by humans, and 3. is likely to be a problem (call it... 80% chance of a noticeable net negative impact, and 5% chance of a severe net negative impact).
Assume, also, that everyone in the world is acting proportional to their "fair share" of the problem. Define that however you wish.
By roughly what percentage, maximum, would you be willing to increase your own personal cost of living to stop AGW?
Alternately, what specific lifestyle changes would you be willing to make to avoid increasing your cost of living while still working to stop AGW?
How much would you be willing to pay in one-time costs (eg setting up a solar water heater) vs ongoing costs (eg buying more-expensive biofuel gasoline)?
To what extent would you be willing to pay a little more to reduce the financial impact of the change on 1. poorer people in your own country, and/or 2. poorer countries?
Any other thoughts?
(please do *not* answer if you're not willing to at least provisionally make the assumptions in the first paragraph...)
