Hmm... $800 billion to reduce inevitable temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit... that sounds like a good deal... at least it does to the U.S. politicians:
A Better Way Than Cap and Trade
By Bjorn LomborgThursday, June 26, 2008; A19
The bitter arguments in the Senate this month over the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, which would have required major emitters to pay for the right to discharge greenhouse gases, proved that climate change caused by humans has come to the fore of U.S. policy debates. This fact may comfort those who believe that future generations will judge us on the zeal with which we face the challenge. It may even assuage the fears of those who believe that warming will end life as we know it. But political rhetoric is unlikely to put us on a path toward solving the problem of climate change in the best possible way.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the bill, has called it "the world's most far-reaching program to fight global warming." It is indeed policy on a grand scale. It would slow American economic growth by trillions of dollars over the next half-century. But in terms of temperature, the result will be negligible if China and India don't also commit to reducing their emissions, and it will be only slightly more significant if they do. By itself, Lieberman-Warner would postpone the temperature increase projected for 2050 by about two years.
Politicians favor the cap-and-trade system because it is an indirect tax that disguises the true costs of reducing carbon emissions. It also gives lawmakers an opportunity to control the number and distribution of emissions allowances, and the flow of billions of dollars of subsidies and sweeteners.
Many people believe that everyone has a moral obligation to ask how we can best combat climate change. Attempts to curb carbon emissions along the lines of the bill now pending are a poor answer compared with other options.
Consider that today, solar panels are one-tenth as efficient as the cheapest fossil fuels. Only the very wealthy can afford them. Many "green" approaches do little more than make rich people feel they are helping the planet. We can't avoid climate change by forcing a few more inefficient solar panels onto rooftops.
The answer is to dramatically increase research and development so that solar panels become cheaper than fossil fuels sooner rather than later. Imagine if solar panels became cheaper than fossil fuels by 2050: We would have solved the problem of global warming, because switching to the environmentally friendly option wouldn't be the preserve of rich Westerners.
This message was recently backed up by the findings of the Copenhagen Consensus project, which gathered eight of the world's top economists -- including five Nobel laureates -- to examine research on the best ways to tackle 10 global challenges: air pollution, conflict, disease, global warming, hunger and malnutrition, lack of education, gender inequity, lack of water and sanitation, terrorism, and trade barriers.
These experts looked at the costs and benefits of different responses to each challenge. Their goal was to create a prioritized list showing how money could best be spent combating these problems.
The panel concluded that the least effective use of resources in slowing global warming would come from simply cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
Research for the project was done by a lead author of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the group that shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize with former vice president Al Gore -- who noted that spending $800 billion over 100 years solely on mitigating emissions would reduce inevitable temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century. Even accounting for the key environmental damage from warming, we would lose money, with avoided damage of just $685 billion for our $800 billion investment.
The economists didn't conclude that the world should ignore the effects of climate change. They pointed out that a better response than cutting emissions would be to dramatically increase research and development on low-carbon energy -- such as solar panels and second-generation biofuels.
The United States has an opportunity to lead the world on research and development, which would give it the moral authority to demand that everyone else do the same. The world's sole superpower could finally provide the leadership on climate change that has been lacking in the White House.
Even if every nation spent 0.05 percent of its gross domestic product on research and development of low-carbon energy, this would be only about one-tenth as costly as the Kyoto Protocol and would save dramatically more than any of Kyoto's likely successors.
In the United States, this approach would open up new avenues for the nation's creative, innovative spirit and leave behind the political mess of Kyoto-type negotiations.
A low-carbon energy, high-income future is possible. Unfortunately, the political battles we just witnessed in Washington have done nothing to make it a reality.
The writer is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Copenhagen Business School.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501946.html
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change
I can see by the following article that our brethren in the UK are better at sifting the truth out of the drivel that spews from the mainstream media than we are here in the U.S.
Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.
The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years.
The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes. In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less.
'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.'
There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.
However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.'
In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'
Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.
Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.
'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.
More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes.
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change
The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.
The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent over the next 12 years.
The poll, by Ipsos MORI, found widespread contradictions, with some people saying politicians were not doing enough to tackle the problem, even though they were cynical about government attempts to impose regulations or raise taxes. In a sign of the enormous task ahead for those pushing for drastic cuts to carbon emissions, many people said they did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority believe they need to make 'significant and radical' changes such as driving and flying less.
'It's disappointing and the government will be really worried,' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission. 'They [politicians] need the context in which they're developing new policies to be a lot stronger and more positive. Otherwise the potential for backlash and unpopularity is considerable.'
There is growing concern that an economic depression and rising fuel and food prices are denting public interest in environmental issues. Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.
However Professor Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case. 'Things that we do know - like humans do cause climate change - are being put in doubt,' said Lomborg. 'If you're saying, "We're not going to tell you the whole truth, but we're going to ask you to pay up a lot of money," people are going to be unsure.'
In response to the poll's findings, the Department for the Environment issued a statement: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities. It is already affecting people's lives - and the impact will be much greater if we don't act now.'
Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change', and that four out of 10 'sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say'. In both cases, another 20 per cent were not convinced either way. Despite this, three quarters still professed to be concerned about climate change.
Those most worried were more likely to have a degree, be in social classes A or B, have a higher income, said Phil Downing, Ipsos MORI's head of environmental research.
'People are broadly concerned, but not entirely convinced,' said Downing. 'Despite many attempts to broaden the environment movement, it doesn't seem to have become fully embedded as a mainstream concern,' he said.
More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change, but only just over a quarter think it's too late to stop it. Two thirds want the government to do more but nearly as many said they were cynical about government policies such as green taxes, which they see as 'stealth' taxes.
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Tax protests paralyze Europe's "green" policies
Note: Europe is suffering under "green" taxes that are one fifth what the U.S. politicians are proposing for us after this next election.
Fuel protests herald grim times for European green policy
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
May 28, 2008 at 2:06 AM EDT
LONDON — After hundreds of angry drivers shut down highways in England Tuesday in protest against green automobile taxes, and drivers and fishermen in France and Spain paralyzed their ports and roads in a fuel-tax protest, politicians began to signal Europe's ambitious emission-control policies may soon have to be abandoned.
While Europe has led the way in using tax incentives to encourage people to buy low-emission cars and to build carbon-neutral houses in order to meet Kyoto targets, it has become increasingly apparent that inflation-battered voters are no longer willing to go along.
Political leaders in Britain and France are seeking the reversal of tax policies designed to make polluting vehicles more expensive, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and some British ministers calling on their own governments and the European Union to relax ecologically friendly taxes in order to give relief to citizens suffering from fast-rising food and fuel prices.
As Prime Minister Stephen Harper launches a European tour Wednesday to persuade leaders that Canada's greenhouse-gas policies are acceptable, he may find the gaps between their views have narrowed, as formerly ecologically assertive leaders react to rising voter backlash against green policies.
In Britain, drivers Tuesday held a mass traffic stoppage over a new surtax, introduced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown as a way to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, that would have raised the average family's vehicle taxes by $80, with higher-polluting vehicles paying more and very efficient ones being exempt.
After Tuesday's protest and days of anger in the news media, members of Mr. Brown's Labour Party government began to call for a reversal. Parliamentary Secretary Rob Marris complained in a radio interview that “Millions of people will be affected. … I am in favour of prospective green taxes to change people's decisions when they buy a car, but to tax them heavily on a car when it was bought seven years ago doesn't seem a good way to go and it will discredit green taxes.”
Officials close to Chancellor of the Exchequer Allistair Darling hinted strongly last night that he is considering a complete reversal of the tax and a reconsideration of other tax-led emissions policies.
“The Chancellor is listening to what people are saying about vehicle excise duty, as he has done on a number of occasions recently about tax rises,” said John Hutton, Mr. Brown's business secretary. “We are trying to get the balance right between encouraging choices to go green but not hammering people.”
A survey this month by the British polling firm Opinium showed that more than 70 per cent of voters are not willing to pay any higher taxes in order to combat climate change. There are indications that such opinions are increasingly prevalent across Europe as fuel and food prices rise and consumer-credit crises become widespread, making politicians increasingly out of step with their constituents on climate policy.
Mr. Sarkozy, joined by Spanish ministers yesterday, called on the EU to rescind part of the value-added tax it places on fuel, after fuel-tax strikes caused much of France to grind to a halt last week and resulted in clashes with riot police yesterday. Italian, Greek and Portuguese fishermen have threatened to join the protests later this week.
While the European fuel tax is not specifically tagged as green, environmental groups have praised high fuel taxation as an important part of Europe's emissions-reduction strategy, and warned that tax cuts on fuel will discourage industries and consumers from pursuing low-emission equipment and methods.
But it appears that the EU is already moderating its green stand on fuel in response to consumer pressure. While EU leaders had pledged last year to have 10 per cent of all road transportation fuelled with biofuel sources by 2020, a report from the European Commission yesterday backed away from that pledge, adding a new clause stating that “the target has never been to reach 10-per-cent biofuels at any price. It is 10-per-cent biofuels under strict conditions.”
Such reversals led the chief United Nations climate-change official to criticize Europe for losing its leading position on emission controls.
“The whole world gave a standing ovation when Europe announced last year its willingness to reduce its emissions by 20 per cent, and perhaps by 30 per cent if others [such as Canada] join in,” said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, according to the Agence France-Press news agency.
“But now this position is under a lot of pressure, especially from European Union industries. … I am not seeing this push yet.”
Mr. Brown had joined other European leaders two years ago in placing targeted taxes on large vehicles, fuel, plastic bags and air travel with the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, in accordance with the Kyoto agreement. Experts had said that even with these policies, that target would be difficult to meet.
But European voters have begun to rebel against these measures. For example, a British tax incentive adopted last year to encourage people to build carbon-neutral homes, which would typically allow buyers to waive $20,000 in sales tax if the house is made to low-emissions standards, had been adopted by only three home buyers as of January. Builders said they had spurned the exemption because carbon-neutral practices could add 10 per cent to the cost of a house.
See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080528.wgreen28/BNStory/International/home
Fuel protests herald grim times for European green policy
DOUG SAUNDERS
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
May 28, 2008 at 2:06 AM EDT
LONDON — After hundreds of angry drivers shut down highways in England Tuesday in protest against green automobile taxes, and drivers and fishermen in France and Spain paralyzed their ports and roads in a fuel-tax protest, politicians began to signal Europe's ambitious emission-control policies may soon have to be abandoned.
While Europe has led the way in using tax incentives to encourage people to buy low-emission cars and to build carbon-neutral houses in order to meet Kyoto targets, it has become increasingly apparent that inflation-battered voters are no longer willing to go along.
Political leaders in Britain and France are seeking the reversal of tax policies designed to make polluting vehicles more expensive, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and some British ministers calling on their own governments and the European Union to relax ecologically friendly taxes in order to give relief to citizens suffering from fast-rising food and fuel prices.
As Prime Minister Stephen Harper launches a European tour Wednesday to persuade leaders that Canada's greenhouse-gas policies are acceptable, he may find the gaps between their views have narrowed, as formerly ecologically assertive leaders react to rising voter backlash against green policies.
In Britain, drivers Tuesday held a mass traffic stoppage over a new surtax, introduced by Prime Minister Gordon Brown as a way to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, that would have raised the average family's vehicle taxes by $80, with higher-polluting vehicles paying more and very efficient ones being exempt.
After Tuesday's protest and days of anger in the news media, members of Mr. Brown's Labour Party government began to call for a reversal. Parliamentary Secretary Rob Marris complained in a radio interview that “Millions of people will be affected. … I am in favour of prospective green taxes to change people's decisions when they buy a car, but to tax them heavily on a car when it was bought seven years ago doesn't seem a good way to go and it will discredit green taxes.”
Officials close to Chancellor of the Exchequer Allistair Darling hinted strongly last night that he is considering a complete reversal of the tax and a reconsideration of other tax-led emissions policies.
“The Chancellor is listening to what people are saying about vehicle excise duty, as he has done on a number of occasions recently about tax rises,” said John Hutton, Mr. Brown's business secretary. “We are trying to get the balance right between encouraging choices to go green but not hammering people.”
A survey this month by the British polling firm Opinium showed that more than 70 per cent of voters are not willing to pay any higher taxes in order to combat climate change. There are indications that such opinions are increasingly prevalent across Europe as fuel and food prices rise and consumer-credit crises become widespread, making politicians increasingly out of step with their constituents on climate policy.
Mr. Sarkozy, joined by Spanish ministers yesterday, called on the EU to rescind part of the value-added tax it places on fuel, after fuel-tax strikes caused much of France to grind to a halt last week and resulted in clashes with riot police yesterday. Italian, Greek and Portuguese fishermen have threatened to join the protests later this week.
While the European fuel tax is not specifically tagged as green, environmental groups have praised high fuel taxation as an important part of Europe's emissions-reduction strategy, and warned that tax cuts on fuel will discourage industries and consumers from pursuing low-emission equipment and methods.
But it appears that the EU is already moderating its green stand on fuel in response to consumer pressure. While EU leaders had pledged last year to have 10 per cent of all road transportation fuelled with biofuel sources by 2020, a report from the European Commission yesterday backed away from that pledge, adding a new clause stating that “the target has never been to reach 10-per-cent biofuels at any price. It is 10-per-cent biofuels under strict conditions.”
Such reversals led the chief United Nations climate-change official to criticize Europe for losing its leading position on emission controls.
“The whole world gave a standing ovation when Europe announced last year its willingness to reduce its emissions by 20 per cent, and perhaps by 30 per cent if others [such as Canada] join in,” said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, according to the Agence France-Press news agency.
“But now this position is under a lot of pressure, especially from European Union industries. … I am not seeing this push yet.”
Mr. Brown had joined other European leaders two years ago in placing targeted taxes on large vehicles, fuel, plastic bags and air travel with the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, in accordance with the Kyoto agreement. Experts had said that even with these policies, that target would be difficult to meet.
But European voters have begun to rebel against these measures. For example, a British tax incentive adopted last year to encourage people to build carbon-neutral homes, which would typically allow buyers to waive $20,000 in sales tax if the house is made to low-emissions standards, had been adopted by only three home buyers as of January. Builders said they had spurned the exemption because carbon-neutral practices could add 10 per cent to the cost of a house.
See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080528.wgreen28/BNStory/International/home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
