The Paris treaty on global warming explained

@COP21 could not be more green


RT @GreenpeaceNZ are right: Do not send anyone to @cop21 The summit is waste of time

Greenpeace is right in saying in their open letter with others that New Zealand should not send a minister to the climate talks in Paris later this year. I agree for different reasons.

In common with many previous climate summits, the Paris talks will be a futile gesture that will have no significant effect on the pace of global warming and holding the summit is a waste of taxpayers money.

Nothing will come of them because the developing countries have no interest in postponing their development because of a minor inconvenience from global warming.

The easy way to tell if there is anything going to happen at a climate summit is the seniority of the delegation.


The Chinese made it clear at the Copenhagen summit in 2009 that they were not interested in an agreement by sending a Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs to a key side meeting of the American and French presidents, the British Prime Minister and the German Chancellor. All subsequent policy manoeuvrings by the Chinese on global warming are an attempt to head off green tariffs on their exports.


Why Obama’s Climate-Change Plan Is Hopeless Without China

Why Obama’s Climate-Change Plan Is Hopeless Without China – The Atlantic.

What difference did the Kyoto protocol make and that’s before you consider 3rd World development

Why do @NZGreens want NZ to lead the world by example on a carbon tax, but not unilateral free trade?

Jane Kelsey opposes handcuffs on the democratic choices of future governments! Does she oppose labour and environmental standards in trade agreements too?

Jane Kelsey in a television interview said she opposes the reductions in sovereignty in trade agreements that result from investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions because they limit the democratic choices of future governments.

If so, she must oppose environmental and labour standards in trade agreements and, more importantly, binding the hands of future governments with climate treaties. All international treaties are about restrictions on sovereignty.

Environmental and labour clauses in trade agreements and climate treaties all limit the powers of governments to legislate on environmental and employment law in accordance with the will of the people as expressed in the most recent election and change of government. Power to the people.

Jane Kelsey would do better focusing on those parts of the TPPA deal that lowers the net value of the deal such as those extending the term of patents over the drugs. All international treaties are about trade-offs.

The most important reason for focusing on intellectual property law in trade agreements is Kelsey is likely to actually win people over that are not on the far left, including many on the right of politics over to her cause. Kelsey is too busy rounding up the usual suspects.

Ranting about big corporate conspiracies and the investor state dispute settlement clauses puts people off.

These gusts of paranoia lose support on issues where there is common ground to be suspicious about the growing scope of trade agreements and their reach behind borders.

Regulatory harmonisation is advisable only when there are compelling reasons such as the prevention of hazards or technical compatibility of products – do the plugs fit into each other? As Sykes argues:

as a normative matter, harmonization is inferior to a legal system that tolerates regulatory differences subject to legal constraints, and that relies on mutual recognition where appropriate (the exception to this claim being matters of technical compatibility between products).

Related, as a positive manner, harmonization will often lack any political constituency and thus instances of true harmonization will be rare.

How to argue for doing nothing about global warming when arguing for a climate club enforced by green tariffs!

The best case I’ve seen recently for doing nothing about global warming was put by those arguing with the greatest sincerity and considerable technical skill that the next international climate treaty should be built around a climate club of those that comply with its obligations with green tariffs on those who do not join.

I have long argued that green tariffs are the only reason to do anything about climate change. Much better to collect the revenue ourselves than let it go into the pockets of a foreign taxman.

William Nordhaus has proposed climate clubs as a way of overcoming free riding in international climate negotiations. Specifically, the international climate treaty should authorise members to impose green tariffs on non-members to encourage them to impose their own carbon taxes and carbon emission targets. This has been done before with the Montréal protocol on CFCs. To encourage the phase-out of CFCs countries that did not commit to do so simply could not trade in those goods with members of the club.


via Climate Deal Badly Needs a Big Stick –

4%! A 4% global green tariff is all that is necessary under a climate change treaty that proposes that a carbon price of $50 to apply globally! A 4% green tariff is hardly worth worrying about considering tariffs used to be much much higher than that.


Given all the stories of why woe and doom touted out by the climate alarmists, climate salvation and the keys to environmental heaven should cost much more than 4% tax?! Your sins are forgiven for a 4% green tariff! Big problems such as a climate crisis are not solved with a 4% green tariff.

I think this green tariff of 4% is an own goal. It reinforces the clear message from the economics of climate change that global warming is actually a small economic problem not a large one.

For developed countries, global warming will be at most a minor irritant. For developing countries, their best solution and the solution they have most control over is to develop faster and become a developed country.

Why America refuses to sign climate treaties that don’t include the BRICs

Peter Galbács - Intellectual Adventures in Neoclassical Economics

Intellectual adventures in the realm of neoclassical economics with a special interest in new classical macroeconomics. Theory and methodology.

Energy Institute Blog

Research that Informs Business and Public Policy

Tudor Chronicles

News, reviews and talk all about the Tudors

The Logical Place

Tim Harding's writings on rationality, informal logic and skepticism

Karl du Fresne

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Roger Pielke Jr.

professor, author, speaker

Great Books Guy

Reading The Classics

Velvet Glove, Iron Fist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Economics in the Rear-View Mirror

Archival Artifacts from the History of Economics

@STILLTish. Gender Abolition

Examining Gender Identity ideology and its impact on Women's Sex based protections. Exploring how this has taken such firm root in Western societies (Cognitive & Regulatory Capture).

200-Proof Liberals

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

What Paul Gregory is Writing About

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Kids Prefer Cheese

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Offsetting Behaviour

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law


Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Adventures of a Tudor Nerd

Tudor History from the Wars of the Roses to the Death of Elizabeth I

Weapons and Warfare

History and Hardware of Warfare

Conversable Economist

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Barrie Saunders

Thoughts on public policy and the media

The Victorian Commons

Researching the House of Commons, 1832-1868

Coyote Blog

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

The History of Parliament

Blogging on parliament, politics and people, from the History of Parliament

Catallaxy Files

Australia's leading libertarian and centre-right blog

Books & Boots

reflections on books and art

Legal History Miscellany

Posts on the History of Law, Crime, and Justice

Sex, Drugs and Economics

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Vincent Geloso

Economics, History, Lots of Data and French Stuff


Tracking Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.

Point of Order

Politics and the economy


Libertarian environmentalism

Doc's Books

A window into Doc Freiberger's library

Newmark's Door

Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law

Media Myth Alert

Calling out media myths

Uneasy Money

Commentary on monetary policy in the spirit of R. G. Hawtrey

European Royal History

Exploring the History of European Royalty

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with


Small Steps Toward A Much Better World

The Risk-Monger

Let's examine hard decisions!


“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.

%d bloggers like this: