You do wonder why @mfe_news @jamespeshaw are so aggressively ignorant of Nordhaus and climate clubs?
05 Oct 2019 Leave a comment
Dead Wrong™ with Johan Norberg – Green Tariffs?
19 Feb 2017 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, development economics, economic history, environmental economics, global warming, international economics Tags: climate alarmism, green tariffs
@GreenpeaceNZ @jamespeshaw The Futility and Farce of Global Climate Negotiations @RichardTol
18 Oct 2015 Leave a comment
in constitutional political economy, development economics, economics of bureaucracy, environmental economics, environmentalism, global warming, growth disasters, growth miracles, international economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: bootleggers and baptists, climate alarmism, expressive voting, free-riders, global warming, green tariffs, international public goods, Leftover Left, New Zealand Greens, Twitter left
It is time for the environmental movement to face up to the fact that there never will be an international treaty to restrain carbon emissions. The practical way to respond to global warming is healthier is wealthier, richer is safer. Faster economic growth creates more resources for resilience and adaptation to a changing environment.
NEW REPORT: The Futility and Farce of Global Climate Negotiations bit.ly/1LvFFv3 http://t.co/TwbFUwaPlm—
Manhattan Institute (@ManhattanInst) October 17, 2015
India's target compared to its recent history http://t.co/pIvwhoSTpL—
Richard Tol (@RichardTol) October 02, 2015
RT @GreenpeaceNZ are right: Do not send anyone to @cop21 The summit is waste of time
25 Sep 2015 Leave a comment
in environmental economics, global warming, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: China, climate alarmism, climate treaties, global warming, green tariffs, Greenpeace, international environmental law, Paris Summit 2015, Twitter left
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.
An open letter from @GreenpeaceNZ, @350nz & @coalaction to @johnkeypm not to send anyone to #climate talks in Paris. http://t.co/C1hBJ1teNU—
ActionStation (@actionstation) September 25, 2015
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.
Do us all a favour @JohnKeyPM, don't send Tim to Paris >> stuff.co.nz/environment/cl… #GroserDontGo #COP21 http://t.co/DaqvPGZ4Ls—
Greenpeace NZ (@GreenpeaceNZ) September 25, 2015
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.
How to argue for doing nothing about global warming when arguing for a climate club enforced by green tariffs!
08 Jun 2015 1 Comment
in environmental economics, global warming, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: climate treaties, club goods, free-riders, global warming, green tariffs, international public goods
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 – NYTimes.com.
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.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments