OC Register: How global warming economics REALLY works

by Mark Landsbaum

James M. Taylor at the Heartland Institute put his finger on the duplicity and absurdity of the proposal by global warming alarmists to “fix” the planet (which by the way isn’t broken). Emphasis ours:

“Developing nations,” he said, “which are required to make no sacrifices while receiving many benefits under the Kyoto Protocol, are united in support of the Kyoto Protocol. That’s like panhandlers arguing that working folks should have to give at least $100 to every drifter they encounter. This is not news, except perhaps in the audacity department. It is extortion, plain and simple.”

“…If the global climate talks were really about reducing greenhouse gas emissions instead of merely transferring wealth from Western democracies to the rest of the world, the advocates of new global warming treaties would have sought global emissions reductions rather than allowing gaping loopholes that render Western emissions cuts meaningless. Global wealth transfer, however, continues to rule the day.”

Japan, of course, will have none of this. That’s why the Japanese at Cancun’s warmist summit announced their nation would not support extension of the Kyoto Protocol or anything like it.

As Taylor put it: “Japan is a regional economic competitor with China, India, and many other developing nations. China emits more than five times as much carbon dioxide as Japan, has a more rapidly growing economy than Japan, and is likely to overtake Japan in gross domestic product this year. Yet the Kyoto Protocol imposes costly carbon dioxide emissions restrictions on Japan while putting no such constraints on China, India, and other rapidly developing nations. Japan says it will not support an extension of the Kyoto Protocol until all nations are treated equally.”

Environmental activists, of course, are extremely critical of the Japanese, as a result.

But Japan simply is taking the same position as the U.S.: everyone must play by the same rules, or else, no game.

We like the “no game” consequences. Global wealth redistribution in the name of global warming is a concept that deserves to die.

OC Register Editorial: Climate confab just hot air

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Representatives of 193 nations meeting in Cancun, Mexico, apparently still couldn't agree on how to redistribute richer nations' wealth to poorer nations under the pretense of combating global warming. As delegates leave Cancun today, we're pleased to note that, like last year's failed U.N.-sponsored climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, this global warming summit amounted to little more than two weeks of hot air.

Meanwhile, reality continues cooling global warming fever. Top NASA experts reported existing climate computer models exaggerate CO2's warming effects, and fail to properly account for important cooling that will kick in as CO2 levels rise, according to a recently published study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. If correct, CO2 could double in the atmosphere, and "we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming," one UK environmental columnist noted.

One researcher said in a NASA statement accompanying the paper, "Each year we get better and better. It's important to get these things right." We repeatedly point out that it's a good idea to "get these things right" before redistributing wealth to remedy what may not be a problem.

Coinciding with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting, a list was released by ClimateDepot.com, a leading global warming debunking site, identifying more than 1,000 dissenting scientists around the world who challenge the theory of a manmade global warming catastrophe. Dissenters include current and former IPCC scientists. It's become more difficult for global warming zealots to quiet critics, many of whom once held similar views.

"Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem," said Tom Tripp, a member of the IPCC since 2004 and one of its lead authors.

Meanwhile, the outlook for alarmists may yet get bleaker. The House Science and Technology Committee is expected next year to probe the Obama administration's climate policies, including what Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, described as a "dishonest undercurrent" revealed with the leak of thousands of documents in 2009 from British and U.S. climate researchers.