<< SIGNS SEEN ~ MAIN ~ CLAIM IN MAINE REMAINS THE SAME >>
MELTDOWN FRIGHTENS CLIMATE GURUS
A meltdown is feared. A meltdown of EU climate leadership!
Great work, PW! Lord Karl will be most pleased. Expect an extra ration of Sumerian meade next month.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 28 at 12:32 PM • permalinkI say this and my European friends tell me I am crazy, but George Bush does not have anywhere near the unchecked power that a typical PM has.
For instance, if the US signed and ratified Kyoto, it would be enforced by Federal judges who would then have the power to order changes until we came into compliance, hang the cost. A judge could even impose taxes to pay for them, without the bother of going to elected representatives.
A US President would have no power to override, nor would he or she have the option of ignoring the treaty’s provisions.
Canada, Germany, et al, well, they can just use a treaty they have signed as a guideline.
More evidence that Kyoto is nothing but a handy cudgel to beat up on the US.
Is it just me, or is that article describing a process costing an enormous amount of money and actually doesn’t mean a goddam thing? They are trading in “carbon” and if they don’t trade properly it will somehow cause a crisis in the climate? Are we supposed to “force” the laws of nature, or do they realize that nature dictates limits on man’s power over nature and that the only solution to the problem as they state it, is to roll up into a ball, do not consume fuel or food, and die? Are they being that explicit?
I’m sorry for this mess of a post, but I do not understand what the hell they are doing over there.
saltydog, the Kyoto treaty links “impacts” of the greenhouse effect on the environment to economic systems through “carbon credits”.
The objective is to reduce carbon production across the planet, under the (highly suspect) assumption that an increase of carbon dioxide (thanks to humanity’s industrialization) is causing global warming.
These “carbon credits” became a commodity that could be bought and traded, like wheat or oil. Theoretically, an industrial nation could make a profit by reducing their carbon production.
In reality, there is no clearly proven direct link between human activities and global warming. In spite of the noises made by the enviro-cultists, the possibility exists that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon that we will have to adapt to.
Also, the carbon trading scheme is falling flat on it’s face because industrial nations can’t decrease carbon production without significant economic impacts….the original reason why the US Senate overwhelmingly refused to ratify the treaty that Al Gore signed for Bill Clinton.
Germany is demonstrating the truth of this analysis right now.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 06 28 at 03:00 PM • permalinkI just love this implicit admission of the religious-like nature of the whole “reduce emissions!” stuff:
“The German position is ridiculous - their emissions had been coming down over a long period of time. Last year’s figures are definitely not a blip and this agreement is certainly nothing to do with protecting the climate.”
You mean to say that German emissions have gone down a lot for years, and you’re pillorying the government for daring to plan smaller reductions for the next few years? Oy.
He’s right, it’s “certainly nothing to do with protecting the climate”. It’s to do with keeping the world hostage to your pet issue.
Incidentally, as far as I know this paragraph is a flat-out lie, as well:
Last year, German industries were so successful in lobbying that their government handed them 21 million tones of carbon permits more than they actually needed.
While lobbying may have been involved, it’s my understanding that the relevant government agency simply underestimated the amount of “easy” reductions that industry would and could engage in, resulting in them undershooting the quota. (Coupled with the economy growing less than was expected, most likely.) But it’s a fine argumentative device - even doing more for the climate than you promised to do is now considered a sign of evil intentions.
I’m also curious to know what “21 million tones” would sound like. Does that BBC have five layers of editors who might be able to tell me?
“These figures are unbelievably unambitious.”
And therefore easy to attain. Standard government operating procedure; as a
bureaucratcivil servant, I take great offense to the assault on low threshholds voiced by Regina Gunther of the German WWF (what, the World Wrestling Federation is still meddling in environmental matters? Is Regina the one known as Grappling Gunther?).It must really suck to be a Euro-elitist these days. I’m lovin’ it!
Posted by Jim,MtnViewCA,USA on 2006 06 28 at 04:49 PM • permalinkUmm, maybe I’m too stoopid regarding the graph illustrating carbon emmissions for the period 1751-2003, accompanying the BBC article, but I have two questions:
1)What is the relevence of graphing “Global” emissions when discussing German emission targets and trading policy?
2)Are we really to believe there were no carbon emissions prior to 1850, as the graph implies, i.e. people were freezing in the dark, eating uncooked food?Snark and non-snark responses appreciated,
#17 it’s certainly true that there were carbon emissions prior to 1850, but that was before industrial revolution, the steam engine, and the internal combustion engine. I think it is a fair point to make that there has been an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from human industry. Is this a bad thing? Is it causing the planet to warm? Is it the end of the world as we know it? That’s not certain at all.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 28 at 05:28 PM • permalinkof course, 1850 was the end of the mini ice age. You would expect the planet to warm up as it comes out of an ice age!
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 06 28 at 05:28 PM • permalinkWell as I see it, it’s a matter of how badly the signors to the Kyoto Treaty want the carbon emissions to decrease. Yes, if every Western country abides by the provisions and cut back to 1990 levels, we might reach something close to what the environmentalists have in mind. But the US has opted not to abide by the treaty.
But ... that doesn’t mean these goals can’t be reached. No. If all other countries take the CO2 cuts formerly assigned to the US and cut even more of their emissions, we’ll reach those goals. And better yet, we’ll do it as a team! And with the US doing its part (by not cutting, allowing others to work in a multilaterally harmonious fashion). This could be a really good thing.
Of course, the US will probably put out even greater levels of carbon emissions. But that only means greater opportunities to Europe to work in a multilateral fashion.
So Europe, close down those carbon emitting factories!
Posted by wronwright on 2006 06 28 at 06:27 PM • permalinkSo the EU has made these carbon credits a matter of law! Like the ones that Gorebot is claiming excuses the fact that he lives and breathes? That means that they are trading nothing in reality whatsoever! No wonder it isn’t working.
In case you were being facetious, nevermind, but just in case…what the Gorebot claimed to be using to become “carbon-neutral” has nothing to do with what the article is talking about - these should more specifically be called emissions credits. You buy them (or get them granted by the guvmint), and you’re allowed to emit that much carbon dioxide as part of your production process.
22. PW:
In case you were being facetious, nevermind, but just in case…what the Gorebot claimed to be using to become “carbon-neutral” has nothing to do with what the article is talking about - these should more specifically be called emissions credits. You buy them (or get them granted by the guvmint), and you’re allowed to emit that much carbon dioxide as part of your production process.Oh I wasn’t being facetious. The two programs are different only in scale, not in their basic nature or in the ideas that underlie them. Gore is advocating personal payments to independent entities for the privilege of existing on the earth as a human being. The EU has codified the same thing into law, and as all large-scale government looting laws, the consequences are that much more agregious. The thing to remember is that those credits do not represent any value in reality. They represent government loot being redistributed by the whim of whoever is in charge for the next five minutes.
At least Gore’s plan only exploits the retarded and irrational in our society and doesn’t use the force of government. I wouldn’t count on that lasting, however. These things have a way of being turned into the law of the land once enough very loud people decide it’s a good thing.
I’m tired. I hope that makes sense.
When europe falls again, do we have to go put it back together, again?
Not on your freakin’ life….well maybe England (for the view from Dover), and a couple of the old eastern bloc countries (for their smarts). Maybe Denmark if they continue to piss off the muzzies.
The next time France and Germany mix it up, with Spain neutral (natch) and Italy a laughingstock (natch) and Belgium overrun (natch), we’re bringing popcorn and lawn chairs for the show. The Russians’ll bring vodka and baklava…
So how does this all work? The government grants you a certain level of carbon emissions allowable; if you use more than this, you need to buy credits; if you use less then you can sell the excess credit on the carbon market to the poor sods who don’t have enough.
So how do they enforce this? It would require an army of bureaucrats to work out how much carbon a business is emitting. How often do they check? Does the business get a forewarning of an inspection? Does every business have to comply or is it just the chosen successful ones? Do all the emissions have to pass through a meter?
How do you stop this process being seriously corrupted?
How do you stop people from just ignoring this nonsense?
Bureaucrat to Mercedes: You are emitting excess carbon dioxide over your allowable quota.
Mercedes: So?
Bureaucrat: Where are your carbon credit certificates?
Mercedes: My what?
Bureaucrat: You have to have carbon credit certificates to cover the excess or you can’t produce.
Mercedes: But I am producing.
Bureaucrat: Not without the credits you can’t.
Mercedes: You go and tell the workers that they have to shut down the production line and leave their jobs.
Bureaucrat: I can’t do that.
Mercedes: Then fuck off!!
#26 amortiser - You are spot on with your analysis.
Though I suggest a slight modification. If we call ‘allowable carbon emissions’ ‘Ration Coupons’ then I think the whole process becomes much clearer.
Governments in the EU are issuing Ration Coupons to selected businesses. If a business exceeds its Rations, then it can purchase additional Ration Coupons from other businesses that have not used all of their own or it can buy extra without additional Ration Coupons and pay a hefty penalty. Initially the penalties (Fines) mean that a business pays about double for the last units of any energy it purchases but the penalties are set to be substanitally increased in two to three years from now. There may be other options, to say buy green, but no matter that will still have a high cost!
Eventually, the business will run up against a brick wall and its growth would be strangled. So the business would be encouraged to lie or cheat or move somewhere else in the world where the restrictions don’t apply.
And yes you are right, the whole balmy scheme is tied up in a plethora of rules and regulations and needs an army of bureaucrats to run it. The process is inherently corrupt and subject to lies and manipulation as governments issue the Ration Coupons with businesses required to report annually, voluntarily admit their transgressions and pay their indulgences. It’s the new religion, that’s for sure.
There’s a wealth of information about EU Emissions trading and if you are feeling game a Google search, say with UK Emissions Trading, will soon bring up the DEFRA site where there are many links to all the rules and regulations and papers etc etc. Candidly I can’t particularly recommend the reading as it’s quite turgid. I just require enough understanding to be able to combat the moonbats who want to introduce something similar here in Oz.
#27, Wand,
The bureaucrats expect people to cheat. They count on it. It is why they make it impossible to live a lawful life or run a lawful business. They do it by passing contradictory laws or laws that are impossible to live by (if that isn’t a redundancy). It is how their power works and increases.
The only power the government actually has is the use of force. If you don’t have enough criminals you pass laws that make more. It is rather like the welfare state; if you don’t have enough people to beg their living from you, you make more. It is a deadly game to insinuate middle men where they are not wanted or needed.
Most of the time, they call it social justice. Most of them have convinced themselves that what they do is necessary and right. But it is only right if you view human beings, not as individual entities, but as little cogs in some giant collectivist machine. Like ants.
Carbon emmissions are just the latest excuse, and the credits just the latest redistribution scheme - all for our own good, of course, which we are just too stupid to recognize. It’s past time to tell them to go to hell.
(The fact that the governments who do not trust their citizens to know their own business are the same governments who educated them, is something they never discuss.)
From the article:
The news will offer comfort to US climate sceptics who predicted that Europe would talk big on climate change but fail to impose large carbon cuts on its own industries.
What, the only ‘climate skeptics’ (what a stupid turn of phrase) on the whole planet are in the Evil United States? The rest of the planet is composed exclusively of bright-eyed committed adherents to the new religion? Your truth-challenged anti-Americanism is showing, BBC.
Posted by Crispytoast on 2006 06 28 at 10:22 PM • permalinkEnvironmental groups describe the target as “pathetic and shameful”.
“These figures are unbelievably unambitious,” said Regina Gunther from WWF Germany. “It is shameful that our environment minister has agreed to this.”
So, the elected government of Germany is doing what it can to save jobs instead of pandering to junk science. Sounds like the proper role of government to me. And if it makes a professional wrestler unhappy, so much the better.
Posted by Tommy Shanks on 2006 06 29 at 12:38 AM • permalink#27 Wand,
That should be “barmy” as in “Barmy Army” - the English cricket supporters that infest Australia when the Tests are on, rather than “balmy” which is what the weather is like in Queensland this time of year.
But yes, you have explained the process well, and unfortunately the lumpen proletariat have not realised that they will get it in the neck eventually, and be back in wattle & daub huts, cooking (if allowed)on cow dung fires.
This is what really gets my goat - that all the high-faluting arguments are not explained down to the consequences, and the actual cost of such a minimal gain towards an uncertain outcome is the reduction of some of civilisation to subsitence farming or equivalent.#31 I am talking about all those areas where they have no business in the business of lawful citizens, such as environmental protection, education, housing, etc.
In other words, a UN-type bureaucracy. Perfect for running the carbon credit fustercluck. Look for them to steal a few here and there, too.
Germany has a World Wrestling Federation too?
Well, yeah, somebody was planning ahead in the 1940s.
Anyway, I largely agree with all the previous posters about carbon emissions credits being a bureaucratic boondoogle. I was planning to take issue again with saltydog, namely this part:
The two programs are different only in scale, not in their basic nature or in the ideas that underlie them. Gore is advocating personal payments to independent entities for the privilege of existing on the earth as a human being.
...but after thinking about it, I realize that’s pretty much correct. (The next paragraph isn’t trying to patronize, I just have to write it down once to make it clear to myself.)
In essence, once the emission limits have been used up, Mercedes (to tee off on a previous example) has to ask, say, BMW for credits, so that Mercedes can produce more while BMW will produce less. Mercedes’ CO2 output is offset elsewhere, namely at BMW. Gore is advocating pretty much the same thing, just for every single person on Earth individually.
So, I didn’t realize that similarity before. The main difference that remains is that the semi-sane advocates of carbon emissions trading think there’s a certain level of “safe” emissions for the entire planet (however many billion tons that might be), while the Gorebot thinks the safe level is approximately zero. And the emissions trading in fact does result in emissions being reduced by company B if company A needs to go over their limit (as long as company B could have made more money by producing something themselves, anyway), while Gore is essentially paying people who probably had no intention of emitting any CO2 anyway, so there’s no actual savings in his case, just the creation of fuzzy feelings for him.
I wonder where Gore would go to become carbon-neutral if nobody except him was emitting any carbon dioxide?
Wasn’t part of the Kyoto crap also about transferring industrial emission “credits” from developed nations, namely the US, to undeveloped nations, namely the “block of unaligned” whatsits and those same receiving garbage dumps, being so poor and all, wouldn’t have the same “level” of emission restraints upon them so that they could more better benefit from those new industrial capacities?
I remember reading somewhere that the Kyoto whatsit actually allowed for a rather substantial increase in global emissions and its primary, and some have said, only, goal was to remove industrial capacity from the 1st and 2nd world nations and transfer it to select 3rd world nations.
Those same nations being the same ones now currently involved in supporting, praising, condoning and providing safe harbor for the terrorists these days.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
These figures are unbelievably unambitious
Isn’t that a double negative??