Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Monetization of Global Pollution

For the past forty plus years, there has been a concerted effort to resolve the pollution problems of industry and agriculture. One underlying problem has emerged over and over again. It is that the actual decisions are been made by people who are simply unqualified to make those decisions, or worse, are selling an engineered solution whose merit is based primarily on its ownership.

Over and over again, better ways exist but are not deployed because those with their hand on the till cannot profit. Twenty years ago, I was led into surveying the nascent soil remediation business and came away convinced that the whole process was corrupted. It may be better now.

If there is one economic sector that demands a global regulatory protocol, it is the licensing of waste disposal. We already hear about Cap and Trade for CO2. This needs to be extended to every other known pollutant.

This does not mean that just because every metal producer has to pay money to dispose of SOx and NOx that they will all get together to do anything about it. What it does do is define the expense for an entrepreneurial solution while regulatory oversight becomes almost unnecessary except to audit and collect the charge.

Why it has not happened is that waste has been thrown into a global commons. As soon as you have a real problem you shop for a compliant jurisdiction. This facility has had the unwanted effect of shipping dangerous polluters into strange places.

Yet it is obvious that a global disposal charge would immediately focus everyone’s attention on amelioration strategies.

And it might be easier to get a consensus on this before we can get it of CO2. With most pollutants, most countries have little to lose and once everyone understands that the new regime is universal, it is easier to sell politically.
I would like to see the UN reconstitute itself to properly deal with this particular agenda. There exists a global consensus and it simply needs to be mobilized. The economic tools need to be created and managed openly to avoid fraud. And it fraud occurs it is still small enough to not be overly damaging.

It would gain the institution credit that is impossible to get in military adventures.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

UN promotes Global Warming Propaganda

I suppose I should comment on that story put out under the auspicious of the United Nations over the weekend. It came down very strongly on the side of the climate warming as a human caused natural disaster in the making position. Fair enough as special pleading but a little offensive in that they keep trying to masquerade as an authority delivering a sermon from the mount. They even crank out the obligatory petition of scientists in support of their well polished position.

Come on guys, there is plenty of good and excellent reasons to promote doing the right thing in properly husbanding our resources. I just do not think we have to act like it is a matter of democratic choice playing I have more scientists than you. Real change happens when one man says no and sets out to convince others.

You have watched me champion several credible choices that we can all support, knowing that they will change things for the better. They are not even a swindle, as far too many schemes doomed to failure are.

You only need to review my work of terra preta to know that we have created a mechanism that will sequester all the CO2 ever dumped into the atmosphere, while establishing a best practice agriculture worldwide. We can do this without even been too concerned about energy inputs and water supplies during the early stages.

In the meantime, the UN is pushing its private agenda by promoting the climate warming bandwagon by an ongoing series of press releases. This is ultimately a diminution of their own credibility and is disappointing.

You can also be very sure, that if we came to them and said 'we have solutions that require your support', we would only get obstruction. Is it ever possible for a group of people to shift their position without active leadership somewhere? As always, the sheep like their paychecks and will never rock the boat. And though we have leaders, most are only leaders and lack imagination.

We as readers need to do our part in ending the climate warming debate by telling our own circle of contacts that there are policies that are not costly and will resolve the problems causing damage to our environment. A good start is to introduce them to this blog. We have covered most of the bases here.

On its own though, that is not enough. We have created a world in which change can be brought about through political action. And that means that we must educate reporters and politicians about our creditable options. You have all the copy that you need in these pages. Spread the story to these folks and encourage them to lead the fight to a better world.

And we all have to. The UN is clearly pushing a political agenda through their press release program and actually doing something takes a very distant back seat to acquiring money and resources. Of course, that is merely my opinion, but a plea for support without a clear program for success is all about money and always makes me uncomfortable.

Anyone who has worked his way through my blog knows we have solutions. In fact they are fantastic solutions that can be readily proven out. The idea that half the global population can develop a successful agricultural lifestyle while sequestering carbon was just too much to ask for. The discovery that the Amazonian Indians had actually done so in some of the worst agricultural conditions possible was a very pleasant surprise. My modest contribution was to figure out how they actually did it so that we could replicate it worldwide.

This is the nucleus of a global agricultural revolution that needs to be told. Can you imagine the UN actually getting behind such a program? A real action program?