Posted by: Grant | December 8, 2010

Andrew Bolt – “Climate” Collapses

Column – The great warming scare turns into a greater joke   
Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, December 08, 2010 at 07:00am
” …The US cables also show that Ethiopia agreed to back the accord, but wanted a personal assurance from President Barack Obama that he’d deliver aid, while Saudi Arabia asked for US aid to “take the pressure off climate change negotiations”.

Dutch climate negotiator Sanne Kaasjager even “drafted messages for embassies in capitals receiving Dutch development assistance to solicit support (for the accord)”.

It’s man-made, all right, this climate of opinion—made by an army of salvation seekers, rent seekers and pleasure seekers, now doing the samba in Cancun while we sandbag towns from the floods they told us not to expect again in this strangely, madly over-heated world.”


Wall Street Journal On Cancun.

If you cannot pay to access this article try Googeling the title – I have pasted it all for you anyway – sorry for the size.

DECEMBER 7, 2010.
A Mexican Stand-Off in Cancun
Rich and poor nations have never agreed on CO2 cuts..

Few will be surprised if the United Nations Cancun climate talks end in failure. The real surprise is that for the last two decades people seriously believed there was a realistic prospect of securing broad international agreement to restrict CO2 by all the major emitters.

Ever since the West first raised concerns about environmental degradation (specifically acid rain) in Stockholm at the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, the position of developing nations has been the same: They would not agree to anything that compromised their economic development. To avoid a Third World boycott, the organizers of the Stockholm conference came up with a political formula: In the developed world, environmental degradation was caused by excessive development but in the Third World it was caused by underdevelopment.

A straight line runs from the 1972 Stockholm conference to last December’s Copenhagen Accord, which—while it failed to reach a binding agreement on carbon emissions—stated that the world’s developed nations should take the lead in raising $100 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries cut their carbon emissions.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher stood shoulder to shoulder at the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development in Cancun, which was billed as the first international North-South summit. They both argued against the proposed “New International Economic Order,” which was designed to institutionalize huge aid transfers from the North to the South. Mrs. Thatcher told the summit that she wasn’t going to put British money into a bank run by those on overdrafts.

In 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen published his findings that the four warmest years on record were all in the 1980s, global warming took center stage. But the bottom-line negotiating position of developing countries remained unaltered.

Shortly before the 1997 Kyoto conference, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to reject any treaty that didn’t also bind developing countries to lower greenhouse gas emissions. This was a clear rejection of the only basis on which developing countries were prepared to enter into agreements on environmental issues.

Last year’s attempt at Copenhagen to extend a successor to the Kyoto Protocol was more about avoiding the blame for failure than actually agreeing to a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions package. China and the other large developing nations proved more nimble at this than developed nations, which bore the brunt of criticism from nongovernmental organizations.

The international community’s success in implementing the 1987 Montreal Protocol on ozone-depleting gases turned out to be a blind alley when applied to global warming. A cost-benefit analysis conducted by the Reagan administration showed that the benefits of sharp global cuts in consumption of chlorofluorocarbons massively outweighed the costs for the United States. In Montreal, America led the way.

But decarbonizing the world economy presents an entirely different challenge from finding substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons and compensating Third World countries. The refusal of the Third World en bloc to agree to verifiable emissions targets suggests that they see the notion of “green growth” as an environmentalist fairy tale.

History also suggests that last week’s announcement of Japan declining to sign a follow-on to the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a complete surprise. Twenty years ago, when governments started debating carbon caps, Japan joined the U.S. in opposing them, alongside the Soviet Union. Russia’s opposition to Kyoto persisted until it was granted huge additional carbon credits for forestry management, enabling one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon exporters to be paid a second time by its customers for its exports of carbon.

This leaves the European Union as the sole remaining large emitter committed to carbon caps, and the United Kingdom as the only country with a legally binding framework to cut C02 emissions. What’s the point of unilateral emissions controls? Speaking ahead of this week’s Cancun conference, the U.K.’s chief scientific adviser said it’s about taking the moral lead, which would not come at “zero cost.”

With no one believing an accord will be reached, Cancun might be a good place to explain to the EU and the U.K. that unilateral emissions caps have an economic and environmental value of less than zero.

Mr. Darwall’s “Global Warming: A Short History” is being published by Quartet next year.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: