On the relative cost effectiveness of electric cars
28 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in energy economics, environmental economics, global warming Tags: climate alarmism, expressive voting, global warming
Climate alarmists made some unwise predictions about never seeing snow again
27 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, global warming Tags: climate alarmism, global warming
Secret Tapes of the final Copenhagen Summit negotiations, starring Obama, Brown, Sarko & Merkel
21 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in development economics, environmental economics, global warming, growth disasters, growth miracles, income redistribution, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: Copenhagen Summit, global warming, obama
In Copenhagen’s final private negotiations, Obama, Brown, Sarko and Merkel sat down with He Yafei, the Chinese vice-minister of foreign affairs. There is a tape of this meeting at Der Spiegel
He Yafei was the smartest guy in the room. Wen Jiabao refused to attend most of the negotiating sessions.
Given the choice of walking out or sitting down with a vice-minister, they chose humiliation. One response of Obama was:
It would be nice to negotiate with somebody who can make political decisions.
There were still two important placeholders, X and Y, in the draft agreement. They marked the spots where the percentage targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, for the industrialized nations and emerging countries respectively, were to be entered.
China and India were unwilling to make that commitment. They had reached their own agreement with Brazil and South Africa.
"We have all along been saying ‘Don’t prejudge options!,’" said a representative of the Indian delegation*, prompting Merkel to burst out: "Then you don’t want legally binding!"
The entire discussion at Der Spiegel in multiple parts should be read while listening to the tape.
David Friedman on the costs and benefits of prevention and adaptation to global warming
20 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
.@cgiarclimate Debate on climate change always neglect crucial role of CO2 in agriculture @ifadnews @careemergencies http://t.co/Y3Du5YnF56—
Golden Rice Now (@paulevans18) July 17, 2015
Global warming has paused for 19 years
19 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in climate change, environmental economics, global warming Tags: climate alarmism, global warming
Global warming denial, global warming scepticism, and global warming anomalies
17 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, global warming Tags: climate alarmism, global warming
Breaking Analysis: US-China Climate Deal to Avoid 640 Billion Tons of Carbon Pollution, if fully implemented!?
15 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in energy economics, environmental economics, global warming Tags: climate alarmism, expressive voting, global warming
After the pause – The Galileo Movement
15 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, global warming Tags: climate alarmism, global warming
What Obama and China intend to do by around 2030
14 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, global warming, politics - USA Tags: climate alarmism, expressive voting, global warming
HT: Catallaxyfiles
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.
Recent Comments