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.

The Devils Advocate: Against Going Green

Ally Bordas

By Ally Bordas
For the Daily Titan
Published: October 28, 2010

(Re-posted here without permission) 

“Going Green” is the new fad, replacing the desire to adopt international babies that were abandoned at birth. I think Angelina Jolie was the secret catalyst to both of these trends: first by adopting at least one hundred children, from all over the world, ranging from Cambodia to Ethiopia. Before that, Jolie began her work as a humanitarian by sitting on the United Nation’s board. Talk about starting a movement.

As Americans, we are obsessed with what movie stars in Hollywood are wearing, eating, shopping and adopting. So when A-list superstars start wearing clothing made from potato sacks, meat and trash bags in order to save the earth, lord knows that People magazine will inform the average American citizen about where to shop to achieve a similar look.

But is this really necessary? There are plenty of other ways to go about erasing your carbon footprint than sporting a meat-sewn outfit to prove that killing animals is “bad taste.”

Our government pushes and pushes its citizens to find small ways to stop the ozone layer from depleting. Some of their ideas: change your light bulbs, turn the lights off as much as you can, shower in five minutes or less, don’t brush your teeth while the water is running, reusable water bottles, RECYCLE, RECYCLE, RECYCLE and buy a Toyota Yaris to save on gas. If we do all of this, if we “green” our households and apartments, what the hell are we supposed to do when oil companies storm in and ruin it all? What happens when China keeps crushing all of our efforts? Cough cough, this is a waste of our money. And our money is precious nowadays. Hello, we are in a state of emergency! Money is what people are hoarding! The next thing you are going to see on the A&E television channel is: money hoarders, desperately clinging onto their sanity.

According to an article written in the LA Times, “China isn’t green at all; as the Chinese themselves say, referring to the ever-present smog in their megacities, it’s gray. Air pollution is getting steadily worse, and water pollution is a major crisis as well.” Well since China and the U.S. are two of the world’s mega powers, won’t things affect both of these super powerful nations simultaneously? What happens to one happens to the other. When China yells “screw going green,” the U.S. responds with a “keep trying to go green because the government can use the extra cash.”

The article also unabashedly states, “China burns more coal (by far) and emits more greenhouse gases than any other country. It sells more automobiles than any other country too (it passed the United States last year). And all those bad numbers are still going up, because China’s No. 1 goal is increasing industrial production, not protecting the environment.”

And don’t expect China to be changing their ways anytime soon. “We cannot blindly accept that protecting the climate is humanity’s common interest; national interests should come first,” Yu Qingtai, China’s chief climate negotiator, said in a speech last month, according to the LA Times article. “The country has to develop … and if that increases emissions, I say, ‘So what?’ The people have a right to a better life.” Yeah, a better life until the people of China have to wear oxygen tanks strapped to their backs in order to inhale fresh air. It will be an accessory, like a new Chanel purse.

If you have been following politics at all you will have heard of Proposition 23, which will suspend the Global Warming Act formed in 2006. This act was a huge landmark in clean air legislation. If proposition 23 passes, then the government will have to suspend the 2006 act until unemployment goes down to 5.5 percent. It also requires all programs with “going green” initiatives to be stopped until further notice. So this means that all of the effort that Californians have been putting into the idea of “going green” is a waste of time and money if this proposition passes.

There you have it people. Stop buying products that supposedly donate a percentage of their proceeds to helping the world because countries such as China will cancel out all of your good deeds with bad deeds. Here is the main point of this argument: you are wasting your money. Everyone and their grandmothers know that wasting money is not a good thing. Save your money or go jet-off into the sunset towards grassier plains. Or, if you are as broke as me, save it to buy some spaghetti, which is one-step up from the usual Top Ramen.

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.