Obama is doing a Clinton on climate change agreements
12 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, environmentalism, global warming, politics - USA Tags: climate alarmism, expressive politics, global warming, international law, Kyoto Protocol
Last week, I planned to write a blog about how Obama might do a Clinton: safe in the knowledge that Congress will never approve any of his climate change agreements, he will run round the world signing up to all sorts of ambitious carbon emission reduction goals.
The agreement Obama just signed today with the Chinese after the secret talks over the congressional election period is an example. This secret agreement goes to show that the Obama administration can actually keep a secret.
The agreement with China and any other futures similar agreements will win Obama brownie points with the Left of his party, but not bother anyone else in particular because they know they’ll never get through Congress.
The moment Bush took office in 2001, the Democrats started asking why wouldn’t Bush submit the Kyoto protocol to the Senate for ratification.
Bill Clinton had 801 days left in his administration after he signed the Kyoto protocol in December 1997 to submit it for Senate ratification. He did not lift a finger.
Clinton was safe in the knowledge that prior to the signing of the Kyoto protocol, the Senate voted 95 to nil in July 1997 to not ratify any treaty on climate change that did not impose mandatory obligations on Russia, China and other major developing countries.
President Clinton approved and signed into law appropriations bills for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 that included language prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from using its funds to “issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol” until the Protocol is ratified by the Senate and entered into force under the terms of the treaty.
The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These amount to an average of five per cent reduction against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.
Developing countries, including China and India, weren’t mandated to reduce emissions, given that they’d contributed a relatively small share of the current century-plus build-up of CO2.
The Europeans were happy to sign the Kyoto Protocol after the Americans pulled out because the emissions trading price in any such protocol would be very low because no American companies would have to buy emission credits.
U.S. and China Reach Climate Deal After Secret Negotiations – where are the protesters? Where is the hypocrisy?!
12 Nov 2014 1 Comment
in environmental economics, global warming, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA Tags: climate alarmism, expressive voting, global warming, international environmental law, international law, international trade law, Leftover Left, preferential trading agreements
The United States and China have unveiled a secretly negotiated deal to reduce their greenhouse gas output, with China agreeing to cap emissions for the first time and the US committing to deep reductions by 2025. Jointly announced in Beijing by President Obama and President Xi Jinping, includes new targets for carbon emissions reductions by the United States and a first-ever commitment by China to stop its emissions from growing by 2030.
https://twitter.com/CearaProut/status/531251207033982977
Will protestors take to streets about the secrecy that proceeded the negotiation of this international agreement?
- 10,000 protesters took to the streets of New Zealand at the weekend against the secrecy surrounding the Trans-Pacific partnership trade and investment talks. The air was thick with conspiracy theories and the demand for transparency in international diplomacy.
- Why were these treaty negotiations with China over carbon emissions kept from the watchful eye of the American public before the recent congressional elections?
The Left over Left picks and chooses the international law that it champion:
- International law on both human rights and the environment are both an addendum to the 10 Commandments and must be followed, come hell or high water. Even better if the UN is somehow involved – moral status is then beyond question.
- International trade and investment laws are the spawn of Satan. The fact that these trade and investment treaties are freely negotiated between sovereign states adds nothing to their moral standing and much to their conspiratorial origins.
- International criminal courts, the European Court of Justice and the World Court are all superior to national courts. International trade and investment dispute tribunals are the lackeys of multinationals.
“It is entirely possible to rapidly switch our energy systems to 100 percent renewables” – Naomi Klein
09 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in energy economics, environmental economics, environmentalism, global warming Tags: carbon free economy, energy economics, expressive voting, green rent seeking, Leftover Left, Naomi Klein, Quacks, renewable energy
Jacobson and Delucchi think we can replace all coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power by 2030 with wind, solar, and hydropower while fueling a fleet of electric cars.
How? By deploying 3.8 million 5-megawatt wind turbines, 5,350 100-megawatt geothermal plants, 500,000 1-megawatt tidal turbines, 720,000 0.75-megawatt wave power generators, 1.7 billion 3-kilowatt rooftop solar panels, 40,000 300-megawatt solar panel farms, and 49,000 300-megawatt concentrated solar power plants.
| Annual global investment target | Current global stock |
| 250,000 wind turbines | 225,000 wind turbines |
| 113 million rooftop solar panel systems | 11.3 million |
Delucchi and Jacobson estimate a price tag of about $100 trillion for their program.
That entails spending about $6.6 trillion per year from now until 2030, more than 11 percent of the entire world’s 2013 output of $75 trillion.
Naomi Klein cited Jacobson and Delucchi to support her proposition that 100% renewable energy systems is possible.
Global temperature projections 1986 – 2005
09 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, global warming Tags: climate alarmism, global warming
Bjørn Lomborg says that the UN climate panel’s latest report tells a story that politicians prefer to ignore
09 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in climate change, energy economics, environmental economics, global warming Tags: Bjørn Lomborg, climate alarmism, global warming, green rent seeking, IPCC
The second IPCC installment showed that the temperature rise that we are expected to see sometime around 2055-2080 will create a net cost of 0.2-2% of GDP – the equivalent of less than one year of recession…
Again, not surprisingly, politicians tried to have this finding deleted. British officials found the peer-reviewed estimate “completely meaningless,” and, along with Belgium, Norway, Japan, and the US, wanted it rewritten or stricken. One academic speculated that governments possibly felt “a little embarrassed” that their previous exaggerated claims would be undercut by the UN.
The third installment of the IPCC report showed that strong climate policies would be more expensive than claimed as well – costing upwards of 4% of GDP in 2030, 6% in 2050, and 11% by 2100.
And the real cost will likely be much higher, because these numbers assume smart policies, instantly enacted, with key technologies magically available.
Yet another IPCC back down on the climate crisis
03 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, global warming Tags: climate alarmism, global warming
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments