Metroblog

A one-time school project gone terribly, terribly wrong.

07 December 2009

A Wee Prediction About Copenhagen

The world will agree to a "framework" at Copenhagen. Maybe even sign an actual deal.

  • It will not be binding, with real penalties for failure to reduce emissions

  • It won't adress consumer-level pollution

  • It will be based on cap-and-trade, but will be watered down, with incentive-destroying loopholes for many nations


  • Here's Canada's loophole: The Conservative unnatural governing party claims it wants to penalize "polluters." To that end they have advanced cap-and-trade, to be imposed on industry rather than their fickle taxpaying electorate.

    There are two problems with that:
    First, if those financial penalties are imposed on companies, the cost of goods and services will simply rise by that much, plus a bit extra to reflect the cost of administering the new penalties, if any (whether the Conservatives are willing to slap on penalties with teeth remains to be seen, and I wouldn't hold your breath). In other words, the cash still comes out of the consumer's pocket.

    Secondly: As I mentioned below, we're not an industrial nation anymore. Companies in Canada account for about half the pollution we emit. The other half is mostly from our cars.

    There's a simple, market-based solution for this. However, it's not a Conservative-friendly solution. It's taxes.

    Yes, taxes. Those things Harper's now considering re-raising as we slither along the economic trench in the wake of his economic stewardship (which has heretofore been comparable to the stewardship of Joseph Hazelwood on the Exxon Valdez).

    It's simple: You tax crap that pollutes, and use the revenue to reduce the price of things that don't. Tax gasoline, pass the savings on to hydro or wind power. Tax heating oil, reduce the taxes on home heating gas. Increase incentives to buy energy-efficient appliances, drive cleaner cars, and build green buildings, decrease the incentives to buy SUVs, hang onto antique toasters, and live in poorly-insulated boxes.

    But our Conservative government can't go that route. Look at how they demonized Stephane Dion's "tax-on-everything."

    There's another solution of course: Elect someone else. Which I'm afraid is what we have to do ... if we can find someone else to vote for. Because the Opposition Liberals aren't making any noise about it, and the Bloc Quebecois doesn't care.

    Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    7 Comments:

    At 1:20 AM, Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

    Bonjour, Monsieur Metro

    Peut-estre aujourd'hui matin j'ai mangé de trop sucre avec mon porridge ... ou je n'ai pas mangé la sucre (or est ça LE sucre) sufficient

    MAIS je me trouve increasingly warming to the Global Warming "Deniers"

    It is simply dishonest or at the least ignorant and/or arrogant to claim that man-made "Global Warming" is an "undisputed" pScientific "FACT"

    .... or that we should trust that Group of pScientists which asserts that man-made"Global Warming" is a "FACT"

    If it were a "FACT" (which is not admitted), the University of East Anglia should explain the emails apparently seeking to suppress the Views of pScientists who disagree with them or who have doubts

    What is a Fact is that in Inglaterra Research Funds appear to be readily available to support the "Global Warming" hypothesis

    ... and it would be understandable if pScientists (... at least most of them who are human ...) interpret their Data towards finding what their Paymasters want them to find

    As Agatha Christie might observe :

    CUI BONO .... to whom the Benefit ???

    ie who is benefiting from their Claims ?

    Alles Gute

    L'Aigle Gris pursuivant le plus de Sucre

    wv resterri ... these Roumanians are getting everywhere

     
    At 3:54 PM, Blogger Metro said...

    Herr Gutes Eagle:
    Glad we are to see you upon the shores of the ol' Metroblog once again, but greatly distressed at the tidings you bring.

    I would be willing to limit myself to "The massive preponderance of scientific evidence, coupled with the credible research, indicates that the climate is warming."

    But the emails simply don't contain any such thing as a smoking gun. Possibly a steaming red herring, though.

    What we see in the emails (and I admit to having read mostly the selection mentioned in the video) is a discussion between scientists taking place over thirty years. It contains backbiting, infighting, and, in a word, discussion.

    I'm not aware of any scientist in climatology who's changed his mind. One would think that after this, some of them would have to revisit their datasets and recalculate painstaking research. Some would discover that the changed data would give different answers, and would immediately have to restate their findings. This has not happened.

    Unless every single one of them is an immoral fibber?

    As to "qui bono." I must refer that question to the fine folks at Exxon. They will have a list, I'm sure.

    One last comment on the qui bono thing. How much do you think Exxon et al would be willing to fork over for honest, peer-reviewed research proving beyond doubt that climate change was a fraud?

    That scientist would get his weight in platinum. The failure of one to emerge must therefore be regarded as at least somewhat suggestive.

    Meanwhile, I'd suggest visits to the following sites:
    One Blue Marble

    The Scienceblogs' Deltoid and A Few Things Ill-Considered.

    There are several investigations going on into the emails, by the US government, the University of East Anglia, and the United Nations, among others.

    If they discover that the sole offence against truth was the discussion of how to dodge an FOI request, will you immediately recognize that the science leans strongly toward climate change or global warming being a fact?

    Lastly, when it comes to acting on climate change, there's another question to ask: "Quisnam vulnero?"

    Again, I must refer you to Exxon and her sisters. And a selection of people who either fear that it will cost them money or who fear a change in lifestyle.

     
    At 5:06 AM, OpenID archiearchive said...

    Alas, the feathers may all fall off our eyrie-bound friend but he will not accept that it is happening and even if it were, then it is natural that Eagles are meant to become bald. As the coasts of the world become inundated and millions drown, he will sit in his despondent slough and declaim upon the naturalness of it all. Featherless and wet, he will suddenly remember two things. Firstly that he needs those feathers to fly and secondly, it is ducks who swim not eagles. His final gurgles will be sadly unrecorded. :(

     
    At 11:04 PM, OpenID bunkstrutts said...

    How do' folks. I gotta back Herr Eagle on this one.

    The whole shebang, global taxation and all, revolves around the assumption that global warming is bad, regardless if humans contribute to it or not. I believe that THAT premise is false for what should be obvious reasons.

    But the proof that there's going to be a rapid heating of the earth is just not there.

    The emails show intent to alter and/or ignore data that didn't fit the hypothesis of man-made global warming;

    Missing data sets were replaced with "probable" data;

    Approximately 75% of Russia's data sets were ignored in favor of the 25% located in urban areas;

    All of Antarctica's stations were ignored for data from the past 17 years except for ONE station on the peninsula. This station reported for a continent with a landmass larger than North America.

    Falsification of data has been discovered in Australia's projections as well.

    Here are two of many sites that address the sloppy "science" backing this hoax:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/
    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/

    I say let's warm the earth more. Let's make Greenland green again!

     
    At 11:35 AM, Blogger Metro said...

    Hi Bunk:

    Hope you had a good Christmas or holiday-of-your-choice ;-)

    If your premise is that global warming is good, I disagree. And so, I think, would the residents of Micronesia, whose entire island nation is threatened by a very slight change in sea levels.

    The Economist took a look at the issue from a similar perspective, and concluded that the economic and social impacts presented a compelling case for action. We spent some four percent of the world's GDP in rescuing banks that should have been allowed to fail. Why can't we spend one percent to make the globe a slightly cleaner place to live?

    In my own country there isn't a single industry not affected: Fisheries, tourism, what little manufacturing we still have ...

    That's before we even get to the human costs: Displacements, the impact on food production, the expansion of deserts, war as a consequence of scarcity.

    So whether it's human-caused or not, I think it's difficult to call it a good thing.

    So that's the first issue.

    The second is that your statement re. the "Climategate" e-mails is simply wrong.

    The e-mails show a thirty-year pattern of discussion regarding how to present the data not to reinforce some a priori conclusion, but meaningfully.

    The trouble with what you're saying about the data sets ( I assume you're referring only to the "Climategate" mails) is that the data is independently confirmed by NASA and at least two other agencies.

    The links:
    "What's Up With That" is really bad. There's the "G.P." "bear-baiting" stories. Nice little parables that don't actually address any of the science.

    The rest of it seems mostly to be "Ooh, isn't it cold today. Global warming must be a myth."

    Nice stuff if what you want is to reinforce a previously held opinion, but thin on actual science.

    And frankly, the other one is simply another conservative blog, one of many. I see no evidence that the author has any credibility on climate change. Would you accept it if I cited, say, Michael Moore?

    Show me a link to a climate scientist who's changed his mind and has laid out the "hoax" in black-and-white, or one to another scientist who's restating his data since the "Climategate" emails.

    The science simply supports the hypothesis: The earth is in fact getting warmer. Has been for quite some time, and has accellerated since the Industrial Revolution.

    The failure of governments including the Obama administration, and particularly the Harper Conservatives, to push the actual science in the absence of credible counter-argument, is the only reason that any credibility is given to people who claim there's a "debate."

    One last point of my own, and beyond the "Green Greenland" joke:
    Whether or not the climate is changing, what's your rationale for wanting to spew more poison into the atmosphere?

     
    At 10:30 PM, OpenID bunkstrutts said...

    Dang, hard to decide where to start on this one.

    The premise of manmade global warming (AGW) is a false alarmist myth designed to create public hysteria for the purposes of taxation, both locally and globally.

    The premise that a 1/2-degree Celsius increase in average global temperatures over a century is a catastrophic danger is false.

    The premise that a relatively small percentage of sentient animals (humans) can significantly affect long-term global temperature variations is absurd.

    The premise that human-generated CO2 is the culprit ignores the fact that water vapor is the major uncontrollable greenhouse gas by a factor of tens of thousands.

    The fact that global temperatures are always in flux due to thousands of variables, as they have been since the creation of this planet.

    There is no possible way to determine what the ideal global temperature should be, as that is merely a philosophical argument, i.e., do you favor plants or animals? Reptiles or mammals? Algae or bacteria?

    So let's look at some of your comments:

    If all the sea ice melted, sea level would not change as the ice displaces its weight already. Antarctica has a lot of land ice, miles thick. Since the continent has an average temperature of -58 F, global temperatures would have to rise above 32 degrees F to have a positive meltdown. So if you're living in a region, say Vancouver, where the average summer high is 71 degrees F, you’d be suffering summer temperatures averaging 162 degrees F, just to get Antarctica to START melting! You really believe that's gonna happen? Micronesia is not in danger.

    The "Action" proposed by The Economist will kill the global economy (for supposed benefits based upon specious premises) preventing emerging economies to prosper and causing existing systems to collapse, throwing many countries into poverty, and sending those already poverty-stricken to their deaths. I can't justify that kind of "global change" and neither can you.

    If the "cap and trade" tax fraud passes in the U.S., all industries WILL be affected financially, and many will go under. Prices for everything will skyrocket and massive inflation will result as the feds print more money to stave off financial ruin. So much for prosperity.

    Now you venture into the steaming pile of "Climategate." The Hon. G. Eagle nailed that one from above. The exposed emails from East Anglia from the last 10 years clearly show efforts to thwart "peer review" by repeatedly and deliberately blocking requests from outside climatologists (as did NASA). Why would competent scientists not want others to verify their discoveries independently? The trouble with Anglia and Nasa and Australia is that they all worked from the same data that was manipulated by Mann et. al.

    As for NASA's nonsense, read the appendix to Michael Crichton's "State of Fear."

    Let's go back to the emails. Now do a word search for "hide" or "hidden." There are A LOT of hits. As for the programming problems, try this brief summary: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/#more-13197.

    Now, about your last comment:
    "Whether or not the climate is changing, what’s your rationale for wanting to spew more poison into the atmosphere?"
    Please point out where I ever made such an absurd statement. You don't need to stoop to blatant lies to defend the AGW hoax that you and so many others have blindly accepted as truth from the politicos and their back pocket media mouthpieces. You are smart enough to think for yourself, or aren't you?

    Your Pal,
    Bunk

     
    At 11:03 AM, Blogger Metro said...

    Hi Bunk:
    Well you've certainly given me some material to work on. I think I'll put this in a post, as it's becoming a long comment. It may, however, have to wait until next year ;-)

     

    Post a Comment

    << Home