Archive for September, 2007



Leave a Comment

Heat. chapter 3 + 4


Chapter 3

Regulations to stop global warming have to affect everybody. People are willing to act if they perceive everybody else is acting.

1.Create a complex system of fees and rebates, which is fair and takes into account income difference. The author thinks this wouldn’t work. Complex systems take time to understand and will therefore be unpopular.

2.Regulations: for example how far it’s allowed to travel per year or when the lights have to be turned off. The author thinks that’s impossible either.

3. RATIONING: Everyone is permitted to cause a certain amount of carbon emission a year
> goal: in 2012 there will be 0,8 tonnes carbon emission per person worldwide
> each country gets the rights for emissions multiplied by their inhabitants
this concept is called :

(by Aubrey Meyer)

It’s hard to add the price for carbon emissions to everything you buy. So the carbon emission would get only calculated for Fuel and Electricity use. The part that’s needed by the industry would belong to the government (around 40%). Companies can buy more permissions in auctions. If they want to produce a more carbon intensive product, it will have to be more expensive.

This would lead to a kind of “New Currency”, the “Icecaps”:
The distribution, dealing and buying of emission rights would be made possible by treating them like a new currency: the “Icecaps”. Everyone gets the same amount of “Icecaps” and can trade with them.

This would be different to the European Union Trading Scheme, in which each EU country and the industry received a certain amount of emission rights. Carbon intensive product companies received more emission rights.

In the Contraction & Convergence Model every company receives absolutely the same amount.
The author speculates that this way of rationing will stimulate the demand for low carbon technologies.

Problem: Poor people need more energy then rich, because they live in terrible houses and are not connected through public transport. There would need to be funding from the state to invest in new services and houses.

Bjorn Lomborg, a danish economist, thinks it would be more expensive to fight global warming than to do nothing. The Author says that’s immoral – people vs. Costs

Economists try to calculate costs of climate change, but get in trouble by calculating the life loss;

things that are not counted – do not count:
functioning ecosystem
human communities
human life

UK Government thinks the social costs will be 140 Pounds/tonne
But how much is the Amazon? No price tags for nature.

Other economists say that energy efficiency will lead to financial efficiency:
Saved energy saves money
Investments in new technologies will stimulate economic growth!

Author thinks, both is true, it will be expensive AND there will be economic growth.

.we spread the costs over years, we don’t have to pay at once
.the economy will keep growing 2-3% a year until 2100
.all assumptions for the future are vague
.we will probably not “feel” the price change that much. Already from 2005 – 2006 the natural gas prices in the UK rose 75%
.There will be pain, but no economic collapse
new markets (legalize drugs?)


Spending subsidies money on
coal, oil, building of roads, farm subsidies, environmental destruction, unprovoked wars…………..
OR foreign aid, climate change, public service

The author thinks that even if there was no global warming, petroleum supplies will go into decline in the next 30 years. One barrel might cost $ 200, so we have to think of more efficient energy to prevent the recession.

Chapter 4

The author wants to show that 90% emission cut is possible,he will proove that with 60% of the emissions in this chapter.

Military planes will never be eco-friendly. The UK should reduce it’s army to only manage peace keeping. For the sake of the environment, public finance and world peace.

energy efficiency IS NOT energy reduction

Khazzoom -Brookes Postulate:
If the energy efficiency of our industry rises, more people will use the same amount of energy, so the costs for energy or services will fall. People will use the saved money to invest in somewhere else. Some might invest in, now, attractive energy intensive processes.
Energy efficiency = cheaper energy = increase of energy use

Same paradox on the microlevel:

Rebound Effect:
If you receive cheaper bills you use more
e.g. Cars today have more efficient engines, but became heavier, faster and bigger.

If airplanes would do shorter distances, with smaller planes, they would use less energy, would become cheaper, people would travel more.

THAT’S WHY: RATIONING SYSTEM – equal share for everyone

HOUSES in the UK

there is a law that you need a certificate for proofing your house is energy efficient, but the companies who give certificates are private. They want to make their costumers come again, so they are too generous with tests, are not independent:

43% of all tested houses that got the certificate, where actually wrong, below standards

There should be an ENERGY LABEL FOR HOUSES
right now it’s not possible to build efficient houses, because there are no minimum standard for building, but maximum standards


Developed in the late 1980ies in Germany. A house that needs two thirds less energy.
It has a certain cooling and heating system. Heat used sunlight and human bodies in the house.
Average temperature in winter: 21,4 degrees Celcius
Average temperature in summer 25 degrees Celcius

The envelope of the house has to be

1. airtight
2. contain no therminal bridges (place where heat goes outside)
3. automatic ventilation system
4. airpipes in soil (warm in winter, cold in summer)
5. heat exchange systems have to be the only points through which air passes
6. Thermal mass: house must be build with material that absorbs heat during the day and radiates heat in the night

We need building regulations that enhance universal Passiv Haus Standards until 2012
Landlords would have to do energy tests and pay for changes and improvements.

Electronic Gadgets:
Standby mode causes 2% of all electricity use: unplug!
Buy better fridges and freezer
There should be panels on each gadget, similar to a thermometer, that shows how much emissions you cause at the moment. Already this information would reduce the use around 15%!

Gas and electricity suppiers should print your private carbon emission on the bills.

Leave a Comment