The Great Global Warming Swindle
- Thread starter Bigbusiness
- Start date
- Watchers 15
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,866
- Likes
- 4,042
Last week, the European Union declared that it had practically saved the planet.
Forgive me for this long write up but I couldn't resist the force... 🙂 Interesting points in the article which should appeal to all our common senses...
Last week, the European Union declared that it had practically saved the planet. With European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso claiming that Europe will lead the way on climate change, the EU has promised to cut CO2 emissions by 20% below 1990-levels by 2020. Of course, with the EU already having promised an 8% cut by next year in the Kyoto Protocol, this new target seems slightly less ambitious. Moreover, in continuing the fundamental problems besetting the crippled Kyoto Protocol, the EU has essentially gone and made a worse deal.
Man-made climate change is, of course, real, and constitutes a serious problem. Yet the current cut-emissions-now-before-it-is-too-late mindset neglects the fact that the world has no sensible short-term solutions.
This seems to be why we focus on feel-good approaches like the Kyoto Protocol, whose fundamental problem has always been that it is simultaneously impossibly ambitious, environmentally inconsequential, and inordinately expensive. It required such big reductions that only few countries could live up to it.
Some countries, like the United States and Australia, chose to opt out of its stringent demands; others, like Canada, Japan, and a raft of European states, pay lip service to its requirements but will essentially miss its targets. Yet, even if everyone had participated and continued to stick to Kyoto’s ever more stringent commitments, it would have had virtually no environmental effect. The treaty’s effect on temperature would be immeasurable by mid-century and only postpone warming by five years in 2100. Nonetheless, the cost would have been anything but trivial – an estimated $180 billion per year.
With its high-pitched rhetoric, you would be forgiven for believing that the EU has now single-handedly taken the major step towards solving the problem. Barroso calls the agreement “historic,” Tony Blair extols its “groundbreaking, bold, ambitious targets,” and German Chancellor Angela Merkel even ventured that the promises “can avoid what could well be a human calamity.”
But nobody sees fit to reveal the agreement’s dirty little secret: it will do next to no good, and again at very high cost. According to one well-established and peer-reviewed model, the effect of the EU cutting emissions by 20% will postpone warming in 2100 by just two years, yet the cost will be about $90 billion annually. It will be costly, because Europe is a costly place to cut CO2, and it will be inconsequential, because the EU will account for only about 6% of all emissions in the twenty-first century. So the new treaty will be an even less efficient use of our resources than the old Kyoto Protocol.
It is important to learn from the past. We have often been promised dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions far into the future, only to see the promises vanish when we got there. In Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the West promised to stabilize emissions, but overshot by 12%. In Kyoto, we were promised a 7% reduction in world emissions, but will probably achieve only 0.4%. Of course, those promises were made by politicians who in all likelihood will no longer be in office when the time comes to fulfil them.
We will not be able to solve global warming over the next decades, but only the next half or full century. We need to find a viable, long-term strategy that is smart, equitable, and doesn’t require inordinate sacrifice for trivial benefits. Fortunately, there is such a strategy: research and development. Investing in R&D of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would leave future generations able to make serious and yet economically feasible and advantageous cuts. A new global warming treaty should mandate spending 0.05% of GDP on R&D in the future. It would be much cheaper, yet do much more good in the long run.
The EU’s new global warming agreement may help win elections for leaders faced with voters scared by the prospect of climate change. But it will do virtually no good, at high cost, and – as with many other lofty promises from the EU – it will carry a high probability of failure. Let us hope that the rest of the world will keep its cool and propose a better, cheaper, and more effective solution for the future.
By Bjørn Lomborg
Forgive me for this long write up but I couldn't resist the force... 🙂 Interesting points in the article which should appeal to all our common senses...
Last week, the European Union declared that it had practically saved the planet. With European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso claiming that Europe will lead the way on climate change, the EU has promised to cut CO2 emissions by 20% below 1990-levels by 2020. Of course, with the EU already having promised an 8% cut by next year in the Kyoto Protocol, this new target seems slightly less ambitious. Moreover, in continuing the fundamental problems besetting the crippled Kyoto Protocol, the EU has essentially gone and made a worse deal.
Man-made climate change is, of course, real, and constitutes a serious problem. Yet the current cut-emissions-now-before-it-is-too-late mindset neglects the fact that the world has no sensible short-term solutions.
This seems to be why we focus on feel-good approaches like the Kyoto Protocol, whose fundamental problem has always been that it is simultaneously impossibly ambitious, environmentally inconsequential, and inordinately expensive. It required such big reductions that only few countries could live up to it.
Some countries, like the United States and Australia, chose to opt out of its stringent demands; others, like Canada, Japan, and a raft of European states, pay lip service to its requirements but will essentially miss its targets. Yet, even if everyone had participated and continued to stick to Kyoto’s ever more stringent commitments, it would have had virtually no environmental effect. The treaty’s effect on temperature would be immeasurable by mid-century and only postpone warming by five years in 2100. Nonetheless, the cost would have been anything but trivial – an estimated $180 billion per year.
With its high-pitched rhetoric, you would be forgiven for believing that the EU has now single-handedly taken the major step towards solving the problem. Barroso calls the agreement “historic,” Tony Blair extols its “groundbreaking, bold, ambitious targets,” and German Chancellor Angela Merkel even ventured that the promises “can avoid what could well be a human calamity.”
But nobody sees fit to reveal the agreement’s dirty little secret: it will do next to no good, and again at very high cost. According to one well-established and peer-reviewed model, the effect of the EU cutting emissions by 20% will postpone warming in 2100 by just two years, yet the cost will be about $90 billion annually. It will be costly, because Europe is a costly place to cut CO2, and it will be inconsequential, because the EU will account for only about 6% of all emissions in the twenty-first century. So the new treaty will be an even less efficient use of our resources than the old Kyoto Protocol.
It is important to learn from the past. We have often been promised dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions far into the future, only to see the promises vanish when we got there. In Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the West promised to stabilize emissions, but overshot by 12%. In Kyoto, we were promised a 7% reduction in world emissions, but will probably achieve only 0.4%. Of course, those promises were made by politicians who in all likelihood will no longer be in office when the time comes to fulfil them.
We will not be able to solve global warming over the next decades, but only the next half or full century. We need to find a viable, long-term strategy that is smart, equitable, and doesn’t require inordinate sacrifice for trivial benefits. Fortunately, there is such a strategy: research and development. Investing in R&D of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would leave future generations able to make serious and yet economically feasible and advantageous cuts. A new global warming treaty should mandate spending 0.05% of GDP on R&D in the future. It would be much cheaper, yet do much more good in the long run.
The EU’s new global warming agreement may help win elections for leaders faced with voters scared by the prospect of climate change. But it will do virtually no good, at high cost, and – as with many other lofty promises from the EU – it will carry a high probability of failure. Let us hope that the rest of the world will keep its cool and propose a better, cheaper, and more effective solution for the future.
By Bjørn Lomborg
frugi
1
- Messages
- 1,843
- Likes
- 133
Interesting paper, thanks. Atilla you may be interested in the chap's book as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist
Hmm, as well as researching and using alternative (incl. nuclear, at least as a stop-gap) energy, perhaps a gentle form of population control would fit the bill? By gentle I mean not making it compulsory to only have x children, rather making it easier and financially / socially desirable to not have them, or at least so many.
There would be serious cultural problems, as many poor Chinese girl babies found out (although their policy is compulsory) and tedious religious ones, as ever, but as a general principle it might be worth considering encouraging a (temporary) controlled population decline. The practicalities would doubtless be a nightmare. Providing global free contraception, family planning education and, especially in the West, economic (& social) incentives might be a start. Of course the incentives would apply to everyone equally (as child benefit does now) to avoid the horrible taint of eugenics or racism.
The trouble is the subject of population control is almost taboo. Indeed hackles may be raised already by this modest exploration. Many cringe at the idea of being denied their "right" to spawn a litter. They say inane things like "children are our future" or "it's what we're here for" and in some cases expect financial help, even for any number of children. No, imho it's not a right, it's a privilege and a responsibility that should only be undertaken if one has the means and time to do the job properly, and not indulged in to excess. Perhaps in the UK we should grant child benefit for the first child then start taking it away again above two. 😱 I can only imagine the reaction in the Guardian to a progressive breeding tax. 🙂
I'm not suggesting we let the human race die out, though it might please other species, but a significant decline for a half-century or two might help the planet, its less fortunate inhabitants and our race's future a lot more than some other suggested coshes like road charging.
The effects would have to be slow enough in order to allow the ageing / working population ratio not to get too out of kilter, but as it stands today there is certainly a vast pool of youth around the world, many of whom will die young in abject poverty. Perhaps some of them might prefer the chance of a job in the West looking after selfish old buggers like me who have gone along with the population control program, until their home population returns to sustainable levels and those like me have thrown a thirteen.
Just a thought chaps - I must sound like a miserable ogre. I haven't fully thought the cost/benefits, practicalities or moral issues through either - indeed I feel uneasy even mentioning this subject - so feel free to rip into me. However perhaps the OPT have, so I will peruse their site tomorrow.
I think the chap from whom Atilla quoted believes that we don't have an overpopulation problem since technology has a knack of being one step ahead. Certainly, several books predicting population explosion doom, starting with Malthus, have all been proved wrong, or at least early. But still it grows, while the earth stubbornly remains the same size. Technology can't keep up for ever, barring emigration to Sandy Lane Lunar Resort. I think it is hard to deny that, in some countries at least, there is a problem. If people are starving and fighting over resources that simply cannot sustain their numbers (regardless of corrupt governments etc.) , and they don't have an economy in place to barter for the extra resources they need, then they are in trouble. Meanwhile in Britain 60m rapacious consumers are crammed onto a tiny island and encouraged by the government to squeeze another population of Cardiff in every year.
Edit: Looking at first graph, the decline has started in Europe already. The world line looks ominous though, despite the flattering log scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist
Hmm, as well as researching and using alternative (incl. nuclear, at least as a stop-gap) energy, perhaps a gentle form of population control would fit the bill? By gentle I mean not making it compulsory to only have x children, rather making it easier and financially / socially desirable to not have them, or at least so many.
There would be serious cultural problems, as many poor Chinese girl babies found out (although their policy is compulsory) and tedious religious ones, as ever, but as a general principle it might be worth considering encouraging a (temporary) controlled population decline. The practicalities would doubtless be a nightmare. Providing global free contraception, family planning education and, especially in the West, economic (& social) incentives might be a start. Of course the incentives would apply to everyone equally (as child benefit does now) to avoid the horrible taint of eugenics or racism.
The trouble is the subject of population control is almost taboo. Indeed hackles may be raised already by this modest exploration. Many cringe at the idea of being denied their "right" to spawn a litter. They say inane things like "children are our future" or "it's what we're here for" and in some cases expect financial help, even for any number of children. No, imho it's not a right, it's a privilege and a responsibility that should only be undertaken if one has the means and time to do the job properly, and not indulged in to excess. Perhaps in the UK we should grant child benefit for the first child then start taking it away again above two. 😱 I can only imagine the reaction in the Guardian to a progressive breeding tax. 🙂
I'm not suggesting we let the human race die out, though it might please other species, but a significant decline for a half-century or two might help the planet, its less fortunate inhabitants and our race's future a lot more than some other suggested coshes like road charging.
The effects would have to be slow enough in order to allow the ageing / working population ratio not to get too out of kilter, but as it stands today there is certainly a vast pool of youth around the world, many of whom will die young in abject poverty. Perhaps some of them might prefer the chance of a job in the West looking after selfish old buggers like me who have gone along with the population control program, until their home population returns to sustainable levels and those like me have thrown a thirteen.
Just a thought chaps - I must sound like a miserable ogre. I haven't fully thought the cost/benefits, practicalities or moral issues through either - indeed I feel uneasy even mentioning this subject - so feel free to rip into me. However perhaps the OPT have, so I will peruse their site tomorrow.
I think the chap from whom Atilla quoted believes that we don't have an overpopulation problem since technology has a knack of being one step ahead. Certainly, several books predicting population explosion doom, starting with Malthus, have all been proved wrong, or at least early. But still it grows, while the earth stubbornly remains the same size. Technology can't keep up for ever, barring emigration to Sandy Lane Lunar Resort. I think it is hard to deny that, in some countries at least, there is a problem. If people are starving and fighting over resources that simply cannot sustain their numbers (regardless of corrupt governments etc.) , and they don't have an economy in place to barter for the extra resources they need, then they are in trouble. Meanwhile in Britain 60m rapacious consumers are crammed onto a tiny island and encouraged by the government to squeeze another population of Cardiff in every year.
Edit: Looking at first graph, the decline has started in Europe already. The world line looks ominous though, despite the flattering log scale.
Attachments
Last edited:
I sometimes wonder if there is not some unseen element in the human makeup that brings about equilibrium not through any consciously planned process ,but rather as an unconscious collective process. Strange that as the world moves into a period where further development of what we might call our quality of life runs into a wall of issues relating to the natural resources that underpin same we simultaneously see a decline in the growth rate of our population that might to some degree buy us time to adjust to some point of equilibrium.
Yes, good article. I would like to see the audited accounts to show where funds raised from 'carbon' taxes get's spent. I was amused recently to see the CEO of BA I think ask the same question re Browns extra duty on flights. I wonder if he got any answer (that was printable 😉 ). We of course secretly suspect it will probably be diverted to plug the huge holes in public finances that most 'socialist' western european countries have....most of these countries could not actually meet their future liabilities if those liabilites were either not downwritten ,or an increase in revenue was also found to meet them ...in effect we are bankrupt ,or performing like a company verging on same. All of our parents and indeed my generation have been promised benefits both personal and collective that we have not fully funded. 'Carbon' taxes might be the plug for the hole,or one of them.
Yes, good article. I would like to see the audited accounts to show where funds raised from 'carbon' taxes get's spent. I was amused recently to see the CEO of BA I think ask the same question re Browns extra duty on flights. I wonder if he got any answer (that was printable 😉 ). We of course secretly suspect it will probably be diverted to plug the huge holes in public finances that most 'socialist' western european countries have....most of these countries could not actually meet their future liabilities if those liabilites were either not downwritten ,or an increase in revenue was also found to meet them ...in effect we are bankrupt ,or performing like a company verging on same. All of our parents and indeed my generation have been promised benefits both personal and collective that we have not fully funded. 'Carbon' taxes might be the plug for the hole,or one of them.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,866
- Likes
- 4,042
I think there is a lot of truth in both camps. Looking at it another way.
Popullation is an advantage not a disadvantage. I think the globe can support it's popullation size you only have to look at mass food production and all the waste that is thrown away. Europes milk, butter mountains and farm subsidies that maintain excess production can easily feed Africa.
The problem is the excess. Once humans reach food clothing and shelter stage the excesses of want this want that kick in rather than need.
I thought OPT link was interesting but it doesn't show the deaths.
Finally on the economics as Hook Shot pointed out how can we gain by this. There is an economic term called Creative Destruction. It means the destruction of one industry leads to a creation of a new (usually much better one).
I think markets are saturated in the developed world as most people have what they need. The microchip revolution has come to an end. Microsoft couldn't get it's super products out fast enough along with assembly line car production. Now, there is no benefit in Vista after 4 years but lots more problems. Manufacturers can't sell their cars because there are too many producers. Hence, we need some new business and production creating new industry.
That industry can be the response to GW and climate change.
It is a WIN WIN situation. Resolve earths problem and revitalise human existance for the better. Organic production, clean energy, damns, windmills, windfarms, solar panels, electric cars. What ever works.
As with all structural changes there will be losers and gainers and some pain. The end will be worth it.
The only constant is change.
Anyone who tries to obstruct change usually gets deleted. And so we should embrace GW, climate change and change for the better.
Popullation is an advantage not a disadvantage. I think the globe can support it's popullation size you only have to look at mass food production and all the waste that is thrown away. Europes milk, butter mountains and farm subsidies that maintain excess production can easily feed Africa.
The problem is the excess. Once humans reach food clothing and shelter stage the excesses of want this want that kick in rather than need.
I thought OPT link was interesting but it doesn't show the deaths.
Finally on the economics as Hook Shot pointed out how can we gain by this. There is an economic term called Creative Destruction. It means the destruction of one industry leads to a creation of a new (usually much better one).
I think markets are saturated in the developed world as most people have what they need. The microchip revolution has come to an end. Microsoft couldn't get it's super products out fast enough along with assembly line car production. Now, there is no benefit in Vista after 4 years but lots more problems. Manufacturers can't sell their cars because there are too many producers. Hence, we need some new business and production creating new industry.
That industry can be the response to GW and climate change.
It is a WIN WIN situation. Resolve earths problem and revitalise human existance for the better. Organic production, clean energy, damns, windmills, windfarms, solar panels, electric cars. What ever works.
As with all structural changes there will be losers and gainers and some pain. The end will be worth it.
The only constant is change.
Anyone who tries to obstruct change usually gets deleted. And so we should embrace GW, climate change and change for the better.
JTrader
Guest
- Messages
- 5,741
- Likes
- 507
JTrader said:
This is perhaps why ice caps are also melting on Mars & Titan.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
When considering the facts of the highlighted sentence above, and then balance against this the power of man to influence temperatures on earth, the studies that say man is at most 6% responsible for GW do sound wholly reasonable.
If man made GW is real. How will a global tax help solve the problem?
Last edited:
Crap Buddist
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,458
- Likes
- 289
Just popping the monthly Grants thread link info on here, in case anyone fancies trying to bag a wind turbine or solar panel.
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=24237
They typically run out in the first 90 mins. 1 st. working day of each month.
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=24237
They typically run out in the first 90 mins. 1 st. working day of each month.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,866
- Likes
- 4,042
iCount web site for anybody who wants to get involved...
Sign up the news which is occasional and very good.
Here is a cut and paste from their website...
The Great Global Warming Swindle?
So Sir David Attenborough, Stephen Hawking and Sir Nicholas Stern are all wrong, not to mention a queue of Nobel prize winners as long as your arm and all the top scientific academies across the world...
Nice try, but the case for action is overwhelming and the benefits for us all too compelling. If you haven’t done so yet, you can find out how by signing-up to I Count right now.
For a balanced view on the science of climate change have a look at the following websites:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Sign up the news which is occasional and very good.
Here is a cut and paste from their website...
The Great Global Warming Swindle?
So Sir David Attenborough, Stephen Hawking and Sir Nicholas Stern are all wrong, not to mention a queue of Nobel prize winners as long as your arm and all the top scientific academies across the world...
Nice try, but the case for action is overwhelming and the benefits for us all too compelling. If you haven’t done so yet, you can find out how by signing-up to I Count right now.
For a balanced view on the science of climate change have a look at the following websites:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Crap Buddist
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,458
- Likes
- 289
Well, gwapple my gwingerly gwapenuts.......
Hmm i did hear Attenborough mention that every single eco system on earth is in decline, now we can see that with dredging of sea beds, forests still under threat, ice caps, animals now having to adapt and hunt for eats, they never used to eat because their habbitat is changing etc....
so we can begin to see this, whether its a small insignificant %, that Im not sure of, but what do we know of mans nature? Consume, everything, have today, sod tomorrow. Thats a fair point.
Atilla said:
Hmm i did hear Attenborough mention that every single eco system on earth is in decline, now we can see that with dredging of sea beds, forests still under threat, ice caps, animals now having to adapt and hunt for eats, they never used to eat because their habbitat is changing etc....
so we can begin to see this, whether its a small insignificant %, that Im not sure of, but what do we know of mans nature? Consume, everything, have today, sod tomorrow. Thats a fair point.
Atilla said:
After nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole destroys everything that falls into it, Stephen Hawking is saying he was WRONG!..and what does Attenborough know lol
And what about all the Nobel prize winners as long as your arm and all the top scientific academies across the world, that don't agree that CO2 is causing warming. They say is Natural Warming and will cool down. Hay the temperature has risen to 0.5 Degree over 100 years. Time to get the Shorts out :cheesy:
Crap Buddist
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,458
- Likes
- 289
I feel the need for speed..... and an upgrade . Quickly.
Holy smoly , Will the wind turbines cope ?
"In the news today ,378 good citizens were decapitated when their wind turbines approached speeds of 6000 revolutions per minute as hurricane " Big Albert " let rip."
Local resident Henks Van der Hiilks (38) had this to say. "Wows, its powerfuls & wonderfuls with the usings of the dutch wind control's, for sure..."
Atilla said:
Holy smoly , Will the wind turbines cope ?
"In the news today ,378 good citizens were decapitated when their wind turbines approached speeds of 6000 revolutions per minute as hurricane " Big Albert " let rip."
Local resident Henks Van der Hiilks (38) had this to say. "Wows, its powerfuls & wonderfuls with the usings of the dutch wind control's, for sure..."
and of course Lloyds insurance are completely objective in their assessement of hurricane activity ? no interest to promote ? and hurricane activity could be said to have a causal link to climate change in the same manner my bacon always ends on the plate with my eggs ?
LOL...was that my roof coming down 😉
LOL...was that my roof coming down 😉
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,866
- Likes
- 4,042
Crap Buddist said:
Nice one...
You sure fuses don't get blown first? 😆
I don't know about decapitating heads but perhaps Lloyd's have identified the wind farm location for us.
We are going to need an awfully long lead for the kettle though :cheesy:
I don't mind paying the little extra for driving in comfort. only drive 4500 miles a year...What about the cars doing 20,000 to 35,000 a year, I am sure they burn more CO2 then I......That is if there is such thing..and most know its a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceiveAtilla said:
