What the AGW lobby want

It is seldom that the AGW agenda is spelt out so clearly. We previously had Clive Hamilton talking about suspending democracy.

This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

Dan Cass, over at The Drum, spells it all out.

The fatal compromise of the climate treaty is that subservient to free trade doctrine. (I think there is a missing word or something. Sinc) Free-trade denies climate treaty states the right to impose legitimate economic sanctions on recalcitrant states. Good states may move ahead, imposing emissions standards on their own industries and citizens, but this gives bad states an immediate competitive advantage.

If we are to make peace with the climate we must first win the struggle against the carbon-industrial complex and its proxy wars (over climate science and renewable base-load electricity). We only deserve to win if we are prepared to enforce climate security through trade sanctions or ultimately force itself. We need a powerful international environment court to remove the social licence to pollute. The climate polluter who undermines clean technology is, for our era, ‘the enemy and disturber of the peace of the world’, to use the language of Vienna.

End of free trade and use of force against those who do not toe the line.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to What the AGW lobby want

  1. rog

    That is just bullshit Sinclair, your generalisations are equal if not worse than those of some ABC flunky.

  2. Sid Vicious

    Are you allowed to decline to join this new religion known as AGW or do you get a few weeks to consider then sign up?

  3. Sinclair Davidson

    rog – it is bullshit. This is why people are suspicious of the AGW lobby – they have an agenda.

  4. JC

    Jeez, it’s really hard sharing the same ‘planet’ with these pricks.

  5. Sinclair Davidson

    JC – they think the same about us.

  6. JC

    Yes, but I don’t want to impose a green Tot regime on them. Given the chance they would.

    Imagine living on planet with Happy Hamilton as leader.

  7. Entropy

    I think Rog was saying the ABC flunky clearly didn’t mean what he wrote, and it is wrong of Sinclair to believe him.

  8. DavidJ

    Really Rog?

    There were only 4 sentences. Do tell, which one was the worst for YOU?

    And which ABC flunky did YOU have in mind?

  9. Big Dumb Fu

    It seems that the reasonable people initially conned by this AGW scam have moved on, and it is only the raving lunatics left. They continue to get more and more shrill as the facade is falling all around them. I don’t give this current scare very long until it is confined to a handful of kooks that no longer are given any media attention.

  10. MarkL of Canberra

    BDF – dunno. A lot of people have invested a big chunk of their worldview in the AGW scam, and the spivs, charlatans and conmen have their hooks deep into their wallets, sucking out dollars.

    It is really hard for someone who has been had by these conmen to admit that. Anyone who is scientifically literate and able to do research knows that the AGW hypothesis is both disproven and giggle-worthy .

    But if you were taken in completely, it’s really hard to admit. You have to acknowledge that you were sucked in by scam artists and believed their BS.

    Easier to cling bitterly to their Goreacle and their computer models.

    Otherwise, they have to admit to themselves that they believed a bunch of scammers who convinced them that a normal variation in insolation and the normal la Nina/El Nino pattern was The End Of The World and That Only They Could Save The World From Evil Capitalists!!!!!

    MarkL
    Canberra

  11. Michael Sutcliffe

    It’s not really an oversimplification to say the world comes down to two types of people: those who want to force their agenda on others, and those who want to live and let live while giving their efforts to productive behaviour. It’s the difference between assholes and good folks.

  12. JC

    Mark

    I have to disagree. There is a reasonably based hypothesis that co2 warms the earth. People like Judith Curry and other people like her think there is a extremely strong possibility that it’s happening and that we’re doing some of it.

    The problem of course is working out the rate of change and the degree of warming going on.

    There is a relatively painless way of getting around the problem, which right wingers wouldn’t have much of a problem with and that’s nuclear energy. Seeing the strong hand of government is involved simply advocating that from now on say from 2020 all additions to energy production and replacement has to be done non carbon, which also includes nuclear, shouldn’t be much of a problem.

    There are quotes for plants being tendered around the world where the price is starting to approach the cost of coal production.

    Soon enough, once we get scaling around the world and move away from bespoke plant installation, the price will drop below that of coal.

    It’s not as difficult to move away from coal fired plants ans we think it is.

    The sad truth is that if the green turds hadn’t intervened so heavily after 3 Mile Island the US , by some estimates, would be producing at least 80% of its energy requirements with nuclear reactors and plant technology would be much more advanced.

    The only painless way to move away from carbon based production is to ultimately introduce methods of production that is cheaper than coal. We can do this and it won’t be as painful as people think.

  13. JC

    You guys need to take a look a at this. USEC is a US firm currently developing the next generation of enrichment called the American centrifuge.

    This new technology promises to reduce the cost of enrichment by 75%. They promise to reduce the cost of electricity use to operate the centrifuges from 700 million annually by 95%. This is a staggering technological leap.

    These are the sorts of things going on that are really material.

  14. John Hill

    For a more explicit outline of the political ramifications have a look at http://sppiblog.org/news/the-abdication-of-the-west .

  15. hc

    Rog is right. This post is indeed bullshit.

    Internalising greenhouse gas externalities by means of such things as border tax adjustments on the exports of non-mitigating countries is not restricting free trade. It is forcing countries to sell goods at their social cost with no subsidy covering the pollution cost.

    Moreover the World Bank has argued that Article 1 of the GATT almost certainly does not preclude such taxes if they are implemented on a national consumption (or destination) basis. See the Tamiotti et al book.

    It is no more a restricting on free trade than levying a Pigovian tax on a polluter in a closed economy.

    Sometimes Sinclair I think your mind sees the word “Tax” (or imagines it) and your brain goes into “I must oppose this”. It is a silly stance and corrupts the sensible role of the right in question ing dubious taxes and unwarranted government spending.

  16. Michael Sutcliffe

    It is forcing countries to sell goods at their social cost with no subsidy covering the pollution cost.

    I’m pretty sure I have more confidence in a price defined by market processes rather than your decree of a ‘social cost’.

  17. JC

    Internalising greenhouse gas externalities by means of such things as border tax adjustments on the exports of non-mitigating countries is not restricting free trade. It is forcing countries to sell goods at their social cost with no subsidy covering the pollution cost.

    And who exactly determines what is the social cost?

    How can it be determined over the potential problems felt many decades into the future if at all.

    What discount rate do you apply?

  18. JC

    Harry,

    Tell us what the “cost” of not doing anything by 2100 will be. Quantify it please.

  19. C.L.

    Rog is right.

    Sweet Fancy Moses.

    Harry’s following Rog’s lead.

    Harry, do you agree with Rog that all Australian beaches should be privatised?

  20. Sinclair Davidson

    hc – I have no doubt that you and rog and steve from brisbane have legitimate concerns about the environment. Many people do. Yet you surely cannot believe that breaking down free trade and military aggression are appropriate mechanisms to pursue your world-view. If military aggression and domination is your objective, then why are you surprised that we (a) resist and (b) don’t trust you?

  21. Sinclair Davidson

    Sometimes Sinclair I think your mind sees the word “Tax” (or imagines it) and your brain goes into “I must oppose this”.

    Not entirely true (but mostly). See here where we had a long discussion about a neutral carbon tax.

  22. .

    Harry, If yoiu’re going to engage in slander, I must infer that you wet your pants at the chance to oppress the less well off with another tax.

    Obviously this is bullshit like your amatuerish apeing of psychoanalysis.

    Mitigation doesn’t pass a rigourous CBA. If it did, non distorting tax exemptions then a compensating carbon tax would be the way to go. The revenue perhaps could be used to fund tree planting, iron seeding or an X prize of sorts.

  23. .

    I have a long winded rant here on why libertarians are deferential but not strictly opposed to mitigation:

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/12/07/excuses-excuses/#comment-138568

    Blame the left and the deep greens.

  24. Keith

    The Gaia worshippers and the carbon aristocracy are extremely upset that their Copenhagen accord could not be imposed. The subsequent collapse of carbon trading, and revelations of fraud and corruption have essentially destroyed their expectations of foisting the notion of “carbon price” onto the psychic framework of the hoi-polloi.
    The game plan was to achieve a scintillating success in Copenhagen, and then gaia was to be interpreted as “blessing” our good intentions by cooling down all by herself. Meanwhile, new structures to oppress and extort would be in place.
    Is it a surprise that these people are now prepared to go to war over a gaseous emission that can’t be accounted for, and for which evidence of it’s alleged evilness is insubstantial ?

  25. hc

    Every day Sinclair the local shop cooks some bread which the vendor sells to me at $4 per loaf. It’s a voluntary exchange and we both should benefit. But when I buy the bread if I secretly steal some other groceries (say $5 worth) or if the vendor secretly lifts $5 from my wallet then one of us need not benefit. The gains are unilateral but not bilateral.

    The exchange remains voluntary but there need not be mutual gains. Unpriced pollution, congestion or greenhouse gas emissions are a form of theft just as real as that occurring in this hypothetical store. It involves the imposition of costs on the community that are not paid for. The most cost effective way of addressing these externalities is to tax them.

    Trade without such internalising taxes is not free – it is distorted trade. Trying to address such distortions is not ‘opposing free trade’. It is opposing theft.

    Libertarians should not endorse theft. They should defend property rights partticularly on valued environmental resources.

  26. Sinclair Davidson

    Unpriced pollution, congestion or greenhouse gas emissions are a form of theft just as real as that occurring in this hypothetical store.

    While I’m inclined to agree that unpriced goods are a problem, we disagree on, at least, two points. First it’s not theft until property rights are violated – in the environment and roads etc. property rights have been established, just not the property rights you would like to see. Second, I’m not convinced that these things are as expensive as you do. The second problem will resolve itself over time but the first problem is a huge stumbling block.

  27. JC

    Unpriced pollution, congestion or greenhouse gas emissions are a form of theft just as real as that occurring in this hypothetical store.

    Oh bullshit, what utter bullshit.

    Humphreys and I already demonstrated to you that your entire hypothesis on congestion is built on faulty logic and you have said yourself over at Lambert’s blog one time that your objective would be simply to get more cars off the road. That’s what you said, right?

    So you hidden agenda is to lower living standards, not raise them.

    As to the second part:

    What you are creating would be a fictitious set of property rights that would try to mimic real peoperty rights and like all synthetic attempts with such things they would end up causing far more problems.

    Property rights have real historical basis to them built over 1000′s of years.

    If you were really concerned about strengthening property rights you would be arguing that people’s right to property ownership would extend from the core to the heavens and then figure out divisibility. But you don’t of course for very good reasons. It’s either because you understand where that would lead to or you’re simply not bright enough to understand the implications.

    Lastly your example is wrong. It’s not analogous at all, as no one is really stealing. The closest analogy one could get to that shopping incident is that every time a particular shopper comes in the person also wants a free coffee. The shopkeeper would then have to decide if selling the bread is worth the marginal cost of the free coffee. There are trade offs.

    One last thing…The reason this is difficult to solve is because of its utter complexity and although I now despise using the word that you have destroyed I recall reading at university that most times externalities are extremely difficult to solve for the most part and therefore it is best to leave things alone rather applying treatment. You have obviously forgotten that.

    One more thing, if you are going to treat a problem we should also know problematic it is and what the consequences are.

    I notice you skipped over the questions I left for you for the obvious reason that you are aware where it would lead to. Try and answer them by manning up for a change.

  28. MarkL of Canberra

    JC

    There is a reasonably based hypothesis that co2 warms the earth. People like Judith Curry and other people like her think there is a extremely strong possibility that it’s happening and that we’re doing some of it.

    Of course CO2 adds to heat retention in the biosphere. We have known this since the 1800s.

    It is not an hypothesis, and its impact is derisory.

    A study of the heat absorption of CO2 shows that it taps out in a non-linear manner after about 60ppm. That is to say, it has a decreasing impact over that band, and increases are negligible in effect over roughly 200ppm. That’s why we have had planetary glaciations (sea surface ice at the equators) at circa 4000ppm.

    Anyone who has thought a room a bit ‘stuffy’ is actually responding to CO2 concentrations of 10,000-20,000ppm. That’s the sum total of its affect, although any plants in that room will be happy little vegemites.

    CO2 is not and cannot be a ‘pollutant’. It’s a beneficial trace gas.

    So we are raising CO2 levels marginally, in an atmosphere which is CO2-impoverished in terms of planetary history. So what? If we can burn enough coal to get it back to 2000ppm, say, we will merely stimulate woody plant growth and put off the evil day when there is so much CO2 sequestered in limestones that only grassy plants can survive.
    Trees are bad?

    The driver of global climate is not CO2 concentrations anyway, but energy inputs from the large uncontrolled nuclear fusion reaction in the sky.

    That’s why the warmenist argument is so risible. They treat the energy input as a non-variable. They do this because if they do not, then their ‘argument’ to take control of people’s lives and get rich off the taxes they want to impose vanishes!

    Well, the insolation input IS variable, and BTW it maps to the gross climate impacts like the maunder minimum and even the current global temperature decline revealed by ARGOS robots. CO2 increases (per the Vostok cores) lag 500y +/-100y behind temperature increases.

    And so the warmenists are revealed as money and power hungry spivs.

    What a surprise that is. Al Gore, in it for the dosh. Who’d a thunk it? Although perhaps the $9,000,000 Montecito mansion – his second huge mansion – might have been a hint.

    Never trust the argument of anyone who is making money off the argument.

    MarkL
    canberra

  29. Myrddin Seren

    Would anyone else like to see Dan Cass serve the first International Environment Court ‘Cease-and-Desist’ order on the President of China, to see who that works out for him in practice ?

  30. .

    Harry,

    You are abusing the term externality to the point where it becomes meaningless.

    We could very well pay people not to drive on certain roads.

    These so called externalities you talk about are a function of a lack of privately and publicly built mass transit – at the behest of NIMBYs.

  31. .

    “Trade without such internalising taxes is not free – it is distorted trade. ”

    This is degenerate rubbish.

  32. Bill

    If military action is required, it looks like we will be in a coalition of the willing with the EU and New Zealand. (Everyone else never signed Kyoto, have just pulled out, or wont do anything).

    That means we will be invading China, India, Brazil, Russia, Japan, Africa, South America and probably the US.

    Judging from his photo, I think Dan Cass may be biting off more than he can chew.

  33. Jarrah

    “the AGW lobby”…”the AGW agenda”…”they”

    That’s quite the conflation, Sinclair.

Comments are closed.