|
May 13, 2007
Kyoto Destroying European Economy
Here is some incidental music to keep you entertained while you read the following: Carbon trading is the EU's principal strategy for meeting its Kyoto target of reducing CO2 emissions by 8% by 2012. The scheme was launched two years ago in the hope that it would achieve what more than 10 years of political commandeering had failed: significant reductions in CO2 emissions. Instead, year after year, most EU countries continue to increase their greenhouse-gas emissions. Rather than proving its effectiveness, the trading system has pushed electricity prices even higher while energy-intensive companies are forced to close down, cut jobs, or pass on the costs to consumers.Jeeze the Americans were right? What a calamity. As far as the imminent future is concerned, one thing is patently clear: After years of inflated promises that the Kyoto process would not upset their economy, European governments are beginning to realize that the era of cost-free climate hype is coming to an end. In its place, concern is growing that key industries and entire countries will pay a devastating price for Europe's reckless Kyoto craze.What do you know? Evidently the Americans were too stupid to fall for this trick. I blame Bush. Or Congress. Or both. Cross Posted at The Astute Bloggers posted by Simon on 05.13.07 at 11:31 PM
Comments
Uh? However, I'm glad the Euros are doing the experiment. If we just sit back and watch for a few years we will find out what the real number is. So far capitalism (lower costs mean higher profits) has been doing a good job of limiting the rise of CO2 output from the USA. The rate of rise for America is lower than the rate of rise for Europe. Keeping government out of it has done a better job for the USA than government intervention has done for Europe. BTW China now exceeds the USA in CO2 output for an economy 1/6th the size of the USA economy. If something is to be done I think this might be a long term answer: Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion We should get cracking. M. Simon · May 14, 2007 01:54 PM The tragedy of the commons is solved by private ownership. People take better care of their own stuff. Of course we are politically astute enough to solve the problem. Except that the American socialists (the left) resist doing what needs to be done. You aren't a lefty are you Frob? That would make you part of the problem. It would ruin my faith in your expert analysis. M. Simon · May 14, 2007 02:00 PM Frob says: If you have children, well, that's just too bad for them -- they'll be living a life far harsher than the one you live. Yep. I have children. They are pretty smart. I think that they can outrun an ocean that is rising about a hundredth of a foot every year. China is building electical power plants at a furious pace. Unless we can figure out how to do something about that we have big problems ahead (if global warming is not a myth - for the sake of argument). We either get a crash program re: fusion going or a lot of fission plants. M. Simon · May 14, 2007 02:46 PM I've brought the Kyoto-induced ailings of the EU to the attention of the local papers here in Malaysia... Like the US, it's not too late for us. Hopefully, rethoric and computer games (I mean, climate prediction models) won't drag our politicians into Euro-appeasement anytime soon. http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/05/22/the-star-opinions-kyoto-will-creep-up-on-us/ Scott · May 21, 2007 10:41 PM 'Tis my honour to comment on your site, from which I learn many useful knowledges. Btw, you're the first blogger I've met who puts up intelligent, well-crafted posts at the kind of rate I do! Scott · May 22, 2007 08:10 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
May 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
May 2007
April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Rachel Lucas is back!
Doing nothing beats doing something awful Questioning the timing of reality Bio Fuels - Starve The Poor So The Rich Can Feel Good It Is Uncertain the relative objectivity of science and religion Faking out the anti-fake movement Al Be Doh! Divisive argument? Vast shameful coverup unearthed!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
There's no question that reducing carbon emissions costs money; what surprises me is that this article says nothing about how much money it is costing. It makes vague, hand-waving claims but never backs them up with any hard data. This is an op-ed piece that's all op and no fact.
Sadly, we don't have any really good data on either costs or benefits of carbon reduction strategies. The costs are much easier to quantify; I have seen a variety of estimates, but I can't recall where I saw them. Putting aside the wild-eyed stuff such as this article, the figures I have seen seem to fall in the range of a few hundred billion dollars in toto for the USA to comply with Kyoto.
The benefits are even harder to figure, largely because of uncertainties as to the magnitudes of the effects and the value of any particular reduction. The best effort in this regard was done by the British banker who produced the white paper last summer estimating total costs of global warming in the tens of trillions of dollars, as I recall. However, this is the total cost, not the value of global warming effects obviated by carbon reductions today.
It appears that humanity is not yet politically astute enough to solve this classic 'tragedy of the commons' problem. As a consequence, we will likely suffer the worst-case scenarios outlined in the various studies, and simply have to accept the economic catastrophe that these will bring. If you have children, well, that's just too bad for them -- they'll be living a life far harsher than the one you live.