MaxedOutMama
Friday, June 17, 2005
Kyoto, You Dog!
George Bush is a far better environmentalist than Al Gore; color Cheney green as grass.
QandO notes that New Zealand is experiencing its own Kyoto problems: Oops, the estimate from 2002 might have been a billion or so off:
A commenter to QandO left a link to Ireland's little Kyoto problem:
ICCF
ICCF Brussels Conference presentations:
QandO notes that New Zealand is experiencing its own Kyoto problems: Oops, the estimate from 2002 might have been a billion or so off:
A commenter to QandO left a link to Ireland's little Kyoto problem:
The Competitiveness and Environmental Impact of Energy Taxation on Irish Industry, Farrell Grant Sparks, published by IBEC 2000 indicates that over 40 sectors of Irish industry would be vulnerable to an energy tax and that these sectors account for over 75,000 jobs, a total turnover of over £9bn and a wages and salaries bill of over £1.3bn annually. The vulnerable sectors are typically in the more capital intensive areas of Irish industry.
Farrell Grant Sparks Consulting Ltd. examined the potential impact of a number of different energy tax options. The options imposed gross taxes on industry ranging from £40m to £256m. They would have the effect of increasing energy prices in the following ranges:
*Electricity 7.6% to 19%
*Gas 7.6% to 20%
*Oil 7.6% to 21%
*Coal 7.6% to 72%
However, the consultants found that in each case the impact on greenhouse gas emissions would be 'insignificant'.
The Irish Government has acknowledged that Ireland has already reached the 13% growth limit set in Kyoto and has said that emissions should reduce by 20% over the period to 2012. As yet, the Government has no workable policy to achieve the Kyoto targets.and:
The present international framework cannot work as it fails to recognise the competitive markets within which business operates. Any attempt to resurrect the approach taken by the international community at Kyoto must recognise the global nature of the problem. Unless this is done, those businesses that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases will simply move to those countries that do not impose such strict environmental constraints.Other resources:
ICCF
ICCF Brussels Conference presentations:
At a workshop co-sponsored by International Council for Capital Formation, Centre for the New Europe, Istituto Bruno Leoni and Institut Economique Molinari held on Wednesday, November 24th, 2004 in Brussels, a group of high-profile MEPs, hosted by the European Parliament's Vice President, Mr. Vidal-Quadras Roca and Mr. Giles Chichester, MEP and chairman of the EP Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the think tanks warned that Europe's current approach to tackling climate change will seriously jeopardise the health of its economy over the next two decades. Their warnings reflect the latest research, which shows that implementing the Kyoto protocol might cost Europe's economy 10 to 15 times more than the Commission previously calculated.Some contrarian European economists think the US effort is the better way to go:
US efforts - and budgets - on research and technology indeed look impressive. It certainly dwarfs the 2.5 million euros proposed for environment and climate change in the Commission's 7th research programme due to start in 2007. Combined with the research funded by the member states, the figure would amount to 3 billion euros, according to Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas (EurActiv, 31 May 2005). However, a precise Europe-wide R&D figure could not be confirmed by the Commission.and:
"You get a lot of improvement of existing technologies the EU way by increasing the price of carbon which pushes technology improvements, but you do not get the breakthrough technologies in this way," comments Egenhofer. With their long-term research programme and massive investments, Egenhofer believes the US "has got something right there".And for those who haven't clued in yet, what Kyoto does is shift energy usage to developing countries. However, if you actually want to make perceptible change in climate, those countries must participate within two decades. So there's the rub; what Kyoto does is probably completely counterproductive, because richer countries would be far more likely to invest in the technology (and basic research) needed to actually cut carbon emissions. Here is a Dutch study explaining why economists are just a tetch worried; if the goals in Kyoto are continued and the developing countries don't participate, The Netherlands could easily find itself spending 5% of its GDP on Kyoto in a few decades. What a plan!!!!!
In the EU, the CO2 constraint placed on individual industrial plants have so far been too low to give enough incentives for breakthrough technologies, because they come at a too high a cost, Egenhofer continues. "In that sense, it does not get you there, you really need breakthrough technologies," he says.
Comments:
<< Home
Kyoto would do nothing more than create of form of global socialism. Without China's participation, whats the point?
Nickie, the phrase "Smile, you're on Candid Camera!" comes to mind.
TS, I don't think China can afford to participate. It is in a race against time to reach a sustainable economy and environment any way, and it needs to spend its money wisely. Plus, it would be best for the rest of the world if it did manage to reach a sustainable economy.
TS, I don't think China can afford to participate. It is in a race against time to reach a sustainable economy and environment any way, and it needs to spend its money wisely. Plus, it would be best for the rest of the world if it did manage to reach a sustainable economy.
That's a really GOOD post, MOM, I'm going to link to it when I get back from running a few errands. Great job!
Post a Comment
# posted by 
: 6:22 AM
: 6:22 AM << Home
