Climate change: shut up Europe

The European Union is unhappy that the G20 will not have climate change on the agenda.

What utter rubbish. They are the grossest hypocrites. The EU has stacked the deck in so many ways to minimise its own contribution to reducing CO2 emissions:

  • it uses 1990 as the base year, conveniently just after the fall of the Berlin wall and when emissions fall just because East Germany joined a market economy
  • it refuses to use consumption as the basis for determining targets – as a net energy importer that reduces the need for emissions reductions by EU economies and transfers the burden to countries that are net energy exporters like Australia
  • it recently changed the target such that it is a EU-wide emissions reduction target that doesn’t apply to individual EU countries (Australia should sign on to a world emissions reduction target on the same basis)
  • it has a highly corrupted emissions trading scheme that has generated windfall profits, has massively overallocated permits, and is connected to the corrupt Clean Development Mechanism.
  • the purpose of the agenda is simply to reduce the prosperity of the United States to EU levels by tying it up in red tape and reducing US productivity. I guess it has achieved part of this goal.

No country should take any notice of the EU when it preaches on climate change issues. It has zero credibility. The EU’s (and the world’s) carbon emissions would be lower had it not pursued this ridiculous course. It has so corrupted the permits market with the CDM that emissions are higher than they would otherwise be. There are many oligarchs enjoying the fruits of this transfer of wealth from the public.

In effect, Europe has imposed a major deadweight loss on itself and the rest of the world and has achieved precisely the opposite of its stated intent.

The wise person ignores anything the EU has to say on climate change.

About Samuel J

Samuel J has an economics background and is a part-time consultant
This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Climate change: shut up Europe

  1. egg_

    This calls for one off CL’s eebil larfs – BWAHAHAHAHA!

  2. johanna

    The wise person ignores anything the EU has to say on climate change.

    FTFY

  3. incoherent rambler

    What avenues do we have in Australia for prosecuting the government employees (incl. CSIRO) that have deceived, lied and cheated to extract maximum paydirt from this scam?

  4. Rabz

    What avenues do we have in Australia for prosecuting the government employees … that have deceived, lied and cheated to extract maximum paydirt from this scam?

    Don’t get me started.

  5. Paul

    There are many oligarchs enjoying the fruits of this transfer of wealth from the public.

    Which would be the real basis of the whole policy.

  6. egg_

    The EU has stacked the deck in so many ways to minimise its own contribution to reducing CO2 emissions:

    From waaay previous, no different to the CFC emissions horse trading that’s gone on behind closed doors in the UN’s Ozone Secretariat (check out Bromides, especially).
    It’s never an even playing field/uncorrupted when politics is involved.

  7. incoherent rambler

    Please start Rabz.

  8. Ant

    What avenues do we have in Australia for prosecuting the government employees … that have deceived, lied and cheated to extract maximum paydirt from this scam?

    Don’t get me started.

    Oh, but please do get started.

    Here, I’ll kick it along.

    Why is it that the charlatans and scamsters in the Victorian Labor Party and their union mobster buddies are not wearing orange jumpsuits behind bars for a decade or two over the desalination plant fraud?

    They commissioned and built this gargantuan white elephant based on lies – that the drought was “the new normal” and that the big rains would never fall again.

    It hasn’t produced a single drop of useful water; yet continues to drain up to a billion dollars a year stolen from taxpayers and given to the big union super funds.

    Why are these lying, cheating, stealing bastards not in jail?

  9. egg_

    no different to the CFC emissions horse trading that’s gone on behind closed doors in the UN’s Ozone Secretariat

    I.e. ‘Global Warming’ emissions trading is UNscam Mk II.

  10. cohenite

    What avenues do we have in Australia for prosecuting the government employees … that have deceived, lied and cheated to extract maximum paydirt from this scam?

    After the failure of the NIWA litigation in NZ very little. An application to the auditor general may work if you can get a member of parliament to address it. I know lots of people who are running run-man bands attacking the BOM and CSIRO and particular scientists like Karoly and Hoegh-Guldberg but it is like spitting into a storm.

    There is a ginger group who are fine-toothing the temperature record but that will only work if it can be summarised into [

  11. cohenite

    That comment cut off.

    What avenues do we have in Australia for prosecuting the government employees … that have deceived, lied and cheated to extract maximum paydirt from this scam?

    After the failure of the NIWA litigation in NZ very little. An application to the auditor general may work if you can get a member of parliament to address it. I know lots of people who are running run-man bands attacking the BOM and CSIRO and particular scientists like Karoly and Hoegh-Guldberg but it is like spitting into a storm.

    There is a ginger group who are fine-toothing the temperature record but that will only work if it can be summarised into [

  12. Supplice

    The wise person ignores anything the EU has to say on climate change.

    FTFY

    Came in to post exactly this. Are you reading my mind johanna?

  13. Anne

    Can somebody pull CL’s string please.

  14. johanna

    Hi Supplice, thanks for recommending Ghostery, it’s wonderful. Sites load much faster, a lot of crap is gone from the screen and presumably I’m using a bit less of my download limit.

    You’re a star! :)

  15. Supplice

    Oh, you’re very welcome. Just make sure to update it’s block list every now and then – those advertising companies come up with new toys for spying on you all the time.

  16. JC

    Samuel

    But there is also a perfectly applicable tyranny of commons libertarian argument to put forward with emissions of junking stuff into the sea.

    I don’t consider emissions to be a significant problem in the present. But it could present a problem long term particularly from the developing world even though they have a right to cheap energy.

    And yes the cost of emissions could very well be below the benefits of rising living standards for all.

  17. JC

    Oops.. and junking stuff…

  18. ProEng

    Cohenite, if I recall correctly you are legal person.
    I suggest you down load the Professional Engineers Act Qld (which comes under the criminal code) and The Public Sector Ethics Act Qld. (which applies to Universities and contractors to the government)
    The assessment of climate and weather requires engineering qualifications and experience in disciplines such as thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, fluid dynamics and reaction kinetics. Engineering data includes temperature, rainfall, run-off, sea level, cyclone strength, wind velocity, earthquakes, pressure (eg SOI), pH levels and changes in sea and lakes, tide changes, storm surges etc etc.
    You mention Hoegh-Gulberg. He has no engineering qualifications and has no understanding of anything to do with climate. He could be a good target to refer to the PE Board for providing an engineering service (he is paid by Qld Uni) when not registered (a criminal offense). He, and his supervisors at Qld Uni could be cited for breaching the Public Sector Ethics Act – he has called sceptics deniers

  19. jumpnmcar

    Anthony Watts has a list of

    107 expert scientific predictions

    .
    I was giggling at the start till my inner money wasting calculator kicked in.
    Now I’m a tad angry.

  20. jumpnmcar

    Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
    Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years

    Hansen said.

    “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

    Yeah, Na.

  21. Robert O.

    It appears that reality is starting to kick -in in relation to global warming and the fact that hasn’t been very much; the problem is that neither the media nor politicians have noticed, nor care to admit they have.
    We know that Australia is a land of drought and flood and yet mitigation measures such as new dams are not undertaken due to green politics. As well, we cannot build nuclear stations although we provide a lot of yellow cake to others because of similar reasons. And yet environmentally nuclear stations are clean: you need a good water supply and a facility to process waste and store it somewhere, well west of Bourke, but what is wrong with Maralinga the site of the British atomic tests. We need manufacturing here why not make fuel rods, re-process them and build a facility for their eventual storage instead of the colonial quarrying mentality that prevails..

  22. nerblnob

    We need manufacturing here why not make fuel rods, re-process them and build a facility for their eventual storage instead of the colonial quarrying mentality that prevails..

    Because at current Australian labour rates, it would be cheaper to re-process abroad, and even otherwise rational people are irrationally scared of nuclear waste in countries like Australia.

    Having once been involved in planning well bores for burying of nuclear waste in the UK, I was surprised at the small volume the waste actually was, and how much of that volume , over 75%, was the casing material.

  23. born2vespa

    I live in Europe. This climate change crap is being driven by Germany.

    Europe has reduced it’s emissions, not by careful management, but by widespread economic recession that means factories are closing on a daily basis (and opening in China). The only country to still be doing business and actually expanding during this mess? Germany.

    After China, Germany is the biggest manufacturing exporter in the world. Hence the reason Europe has changed its target from country-specific to Europe-specific. That way, Germany can continue to polute as it pleases and hide behind the economic woes of its neighbours. Pretty similar to the way Germany hides behind the economic woes of its neighbours to benefit from the weaker European currency.

    I live in the mountains. The principle way to warm in Winter is to burn wood, which is plentiful and inexpensive due to the widespread forestation. That’s right! Try telling all those mountainous regions they are no longer able to burn their local resources to keep warm. It is ingrained in the culture here. Imagine all those carbon-packed fossil fuels being released into the atmosphere, only the Germans and other Europeans do not tell the world about this.

    Better to insist on economically-destructive policies that competing nations with superior standards of living are expected to adhere to, whilst the German-dominated Europe seeks to exploit the damage this would bring to lever an advantage over other advanced economies for the benefit of Germany. Who won the war again?

    It is time to expose this European (read German) charade.

  24. Andrew

    You forgot that the choice of base year also reflects them running out if coal and switching to gas. But yes, all those things. They’re corrupt.

    On the bright side they got captured by warmies, spiralled into “clean energy” death, sought and achieved world leadership in producing useless ecotoys, and now have 11.9% unemployment. So there is some justice.

  25. Squirrel

    “it refuses to use consumption as the basis for determining targets – as a net energy importer that reduces the need for emissions reductions by EU economies and transfers the burden to countries that are net energy exporters like Australia”

    I’ve always thought that to be a very telling point about the Euro-British position, and their championing of this issue.

Comments are closed.