The deal

10 comments from readers

J.
15 December 2007 at 16:00

As an citizen of the US, I am embarassed at the obstiancy and blatant deceit that issues forth almost daily form one of the most reprehensible administrations in US history.

This is what happens when we put religious fundamentalists and self-absorbed, greedy corporate types in charge of our country.

The US has lost it's standing as a nation when maybe it was once a symbol of innovative and progressive ideals. We are now mostly a nation in pathological denial of reality,smuggly complacent and satisfied with excessive and unsustainable consumerism, mindless entertainment and deluded by infantile religious fantasies

aelemay
15 December 2007 at 18:25

Actually, it is the Americans who understand climate science. What passes for climate science at Bali is like a prescription from a witch doctor.

Never have so many people been so wrong for so long. Now, the rest of the world is taking a position which is absolutely incredible because the Rio Conference set rules for mandatory cutbacks and it did not work. Seven years later, Kyoto made it more difficult and it did not work, and now, the Bali Conference is making it much more difficult five years from now, and it seems it won't work either.

Now, the US has been far more successful than Europe in restricting the emissions of CO2 with technology-based R&D program and with voluntary efforts. But, even so, the world wants to impose a solution on the US which is a demonstrated failure and prevent the US from using its own scheme which has demonstrated that it works. This is hard to believe, but true.

100 top climate scientists, many of them present or past IPCC members have written a letter to Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the UN, that the carbon reduction protocols would do absolutely nothing to control the climate, and that CO2 has little or nothing to do with global warming. This important communication has been ignored by everyone, but here is the link:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

Now, this is truly a tale worthy of Gulliver’s travels, which, in Part III, Gulliver discovers the Laputan scientists are working on extracting sunbeams from cucumbers. It would seem that the attendees at the Bali conference are just as crazy.

J.
15 December 2007 at 19:57

" A call for reason" by these scientists in that open letter sound like more of the same "do nothing"... " I am not responsible" dogma of denial that constantly comes from the right and free market libertarians. Maybe our efforts to curb greenhouse emmissions will not be totally effective, but the business as usual policies that we think we can continue indefinitely are coming to an end simply by circumstances which we are least partly responsible for. Humans through the coming shortages and climate phenomonen may start to realize that feel good high tech fixes are not going exempt us from lifestyle and behavioral changes. Every person on this planet is in some way responsible for it's health. It high time there is recognition of that instead of more denial, convenient obstructions and excuses.

aelemay
16 December 2007 at 10:28

When faced with uncertainty and doubt, some say “just don’t stand there, do something, even if it’s wrong.” Does any think the expression “opening Pandora’s box” does not apply here?

Never before have so many been so wrong about so many things. But, the global warming hysteria is producing wonderful opportunities to make money, in the name of “saving the earth.” That is what it is really about.

The science does not support the conclusions

The great majority of reputable climate scientists either: 1) do not believe the observed warming is unusual in the history of world’s climate, or 2) do not believe CO2 and the greenhouse effect is causing the warming, 3) are convinced the climate changes are almost entirely natural and are caused by variations in the sun’s energy, clouds and precipitation, volcanism, and other unknown factors.

A group of one hundred top climate scientists, many of them present or past IPCC members have written a letter to Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the UN, that the carbon reduction protocols would do absolutely nothing to control the climate, and that CO2 has little or nothing to do with global warming. This important communication has been ignored by everyone, but here is the link:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

There is not even any correlation of CO2 to temperatures in the 20th century. From 1940 to the middle 1970’s the earth cooled during the period of dramatic increases in industrial activity, home building, construction of roads, a veritable explosion in the numbers of automobiles, increases in air travel, etc. This caused the global cooling hysteria at the end of the 1970 decade.

Then we had a warming period, ending in 1998, which caused the global warming hysteria which is still with us. There has been no warming since 1998, and those measurements which show surface warming, are, in the great majority, from urban locations where researchers have found the measuring instruments in locations near industrial machines, exhaust systems, and other environments which make the readings erroneous and much higher than they should be.

Those who would profit

Why is this happening? The global warming hysteria is a product of rent seekers, as an economist would say. A rent seeker is one who uses political influence to gain a source income which would not otherwise be possible in a free market. In this case, establishing man’s guilt, especially rich countries’ guilt, makes the following possible:

1) The UN gains a source of income from managing a CO2 reduction scheme, either a carbon tax, or a cap and trade scheme.

2) Literally thousands of Scientist-politicians gain employment with elevated salaries and research grants, and enjoy travel to exotic locations, public adulation and prestige.

3) Developing Countries gain funds from developed countries.

4) Special Interest groups gain a reason to press monetary settlements for grievances, e.g. Islands nations with rising ocean levels, native peoples who can no longer clear forest lands, human rights activists, and anyone who sees a cause for pleading damages

5) And of course, the hundreds of thousands of activists who solicit millions of dollars from the public to pursue solutions to whatever problem they can spin out of nothing.

6) There are hundreds of carbon trading firms who attended the Bali Conference in large numbers. They say “this is a billion dollar profit opportunity!” Al Gore has a large investment in one of these.

7) Signatories of the Kyoto Protocol who expect to sell carbon credits. This is a large number of countries, only 36 of 180 countries are obliged to buy credits if their caps are exceeded, the rest can sell credits to them. Reuters reports that 20 per cent of all credits being traded by the UN are fraudulent.

In addition, there are those who are not rent seekers, but who legitimately wish to profit from the regulations which Kyoto and its potential follow-ons produce:

1) Venture Capital investors who want to invest in CO2 reduction, or capture equipment.

2) Industrial companies who perceive that entirely new electricity generating, and industrial plants will be built.

3) Alternative energy manufacturers who profit from Government subsidies for wind, solar, bio, hydro, and co-generation equipment

4) Newspapers, magazines, books and other media discussing global warming who make money by increasing public and voter concern over the subject.

Those who pay

Virtually everyone would pay for this. Whether it was implemented as a carbon tax, or a cap and trade system, the effect would be to raise everyone’s costs tremendously. Whether we like it or not, we are dependent on carbon based energy for running our economies. Only nuclear power can provide a base load for electricity generation, and France is the only country to really make it work.

But, if the cuts in CO2 demanded are too large, the reduction in energy sources will bring growth to an end, and, the time frame needed to convert to a low- or no- carbon economy is measured in decades not in years.

The cap and trade schemes don’t work

The IPCC keeps trying over and over to make a failed solution work by making it harder and harder. Bjorn Lomborg, in a recent interview said: “Before Kyoto in 1992 we actually had the Rio summit, where we said we were going to cut emissions by 2000 to 1990 levels. We overshot that by 12 percent. Then in Kyoto we said, all right, let's make it harder. It didn't work out very well the first time. Let's try to make it harder. So in 1997 we said, all right, we're going to reduce it below 1990 levels by 2010. We're probably going to overshoot that by about 25 percent. It seems likely to me to say we're going to do that again and again, simply because it's very costly.”

Now, the US has been far more successful than Europe in restricting the emissions of CO2 with technology-based R&D program and with voluntary efforts. But, even so, the world wants to impose a solution on the US which is a demonstrated failure and prevent the US from using its own scheme which has demonstrated that it works. This is hard to believe, but true.

So, it seems that the delegates to Bali are living in cloud-cuckoo-land, and they refuse to try a solution which is working. Einstein said “trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a definition of insanity.” But, any scheme which makes the rent seekers money is just fine, even if it does not work!

We will all be much the poorer for it.

Cybertiger
16 December 2007 at 12:47

I think there will be 9 billion bicycles being rented ... in 50 years time.

J.
16 December 2007 at 13:16

I live in the U.S. and I see nothing of the technological and volunteer efforts that you speak of as working. For most voters climate change is still a blip on the radar screen and with our corporate controlled media and bloviating right wing talking heads constantly being obstructionists and deniers, our citizens just hum along smuggly in blissful ignorance or out right rejecion of the findings of scientists.

Other than forced by necessity to use less water in severe drought areas,I see no widespread volunteer efforts to curb energy use after It's' just a liberal eviro-wacko conspiracy to take away our propert rights away...right ?

Why can't you and the other denier's see a brighter alternative that we could be all the richer for our lifestyle changes, including the developing nations if we start to change our demands that we make upon this earth and each other.

It is our mindless fixtaion on growth and consumption that is pathological and insane. We are the only species that lives beyond it's means on a closed-ended planet that has obvious limits to how much it can give and not begin to disfunction for our welfare, regardless if global climate change is mostly a natural cycle, which in this case, I believe we are accelerating. There has been many episodes of ice ages and warm periods but humans were not around in some of these episodes and were definitely not having the destructive effect on the ecology that we have now.

Why I agree that there willl be some trying to make a buck off a crisis, what is evil about retooling our infrastructure to be more efficent and environmentally responsible?

Cybertiger
16 December 2007 at 21:03

Every breeding pair of Americans should be restricted to one child only - or be forced to sell their SUV and ride a bicycle. After all, Jesus will be riding a bicycle when He returns and he'll buy one from a Chinaman He knows.

aelemay
23 December 2007 at 18:40

To J.

When your company closes down because of climate change regulations and you lose your job, and if you are over 40, you will never again work for a decent salary, and your children cannot go to College, then perhaps, just perhaps you may understand that this cost is just too high. Have you no sense?

J.
29 December 2007 at 19:46

aelemay,

Now who is being overly dramatic and using exaggeration. Why is it so unreasonable that there could be much better ways for us to make and consume energy.

My fully operable "senses" show me that our lifestyles built on excessive consumption and prodigious waste are not sustainable.

Pat T
29 January 2008 at 16:15

J, the question is who gets to decide what is a "better" way to consume energy - government, or the consumers themselves?