Dr. Goklany accepts the Stern Review’s grim numbers and looks at the I.P.C.C.’s various scenarios, which project different levels of warming and sea-level rise depending on the the rate of economic growth, energy use and other factors. “The surprising conclusion using the Stern Review’s own estimates,” Dr. Goklany writes, “is that future generations will be better off in the richest but warmest” of the I.P.C.C.’s scenarios. He concludes that cutting emissions will do much less good than encouraging sustainable development in poor countries and policies of “focused adaptation” to deal with disease and environmental problems like coastal flooding.
Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
Here in Minnesota, where I’ve been the last two days talking about the state’s Climate Change Advisory Group and explaining what can be expected in their recommendations, the Center for Climate Strategies has not been able to push all their greenhouse gas-reduction ideas as robustly as they have been able to in most other states. Perhaps that has to do with the fact that Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty was the one who created the commission and brought CCS on board, and politically has to be sensitive to the elements of his support who actually care about the state’s people and their economy.
That’s not to say the MCCAG’s report itself won’t be filled with the usual CCS pap, like cap-and-trade, smart growth-based land use regulations, and “climate-friendly transportation pricing.” It’s just that Pawlenty already is showing he is not willing to go as far as CCS and the commission would like. For example, the MCCAG approved a plan to reduce speed limits on highways in the state back down to 55 mph. That was too much for the governor, and he left it out of his preliminary recommendations – which were supposed to largely reflect the will of the MCCAG – that he released on Friday. That report is already being criticized by lefty environmentalists for not being strong enough, which they are right about if they hoped Pawlenty would just rubberstamp and release the findings of the MCCAG.
Also worthy of note, demonstrating that CCS and environmentalists aren't getting everything they want: one of the MCCAG's recommendations is to repeal the state's ban on construction of new nuclear power facilities. That is a first (at least as far as I've seen) for any of these state commissions. And you can tell in the language (written by CCS) explaining the recommendations for the MCCAG that they are less than enthusiastic about the idea. Nevertheless, it got through.
So, there are two separate tracks to follow in Minnesota as they prepare to formally release their proposals in the coming weeks or months. First is Pawlenty: how much of the energy cost-raising and property rights-limiting ideas from MCCAG will he embrace as his own, and implement (to the degree he is able) through executive orders? Second is MCCAG: How much will the Democrat-dominated legislature take their recommendations and try to make them law?
The Cato Institute today released a new Indur Goklany report, “What To Do about Climate Change.”
The study demonstrates that for the foreseeable future, human and environmental well-being will be highest under the "richest-but-warmest" scenario and lower for the poorer (lower-carbon) scenarios. The developing world's future wellbeing should exceed present levels by several-fold under each scenario, even exceeding present wellbeing in today's developed world under all but the poorest scenario. Accordingly, equity-based arguments, which hold that present generations should divert scarce resources from today's urgent problems to solve potential problems of tomorrow's wealthier generations, are unpersuasive.
Read “What To Do about Climate Change” by clicking here
In an article today with a uniquely sensible headline – “House preparing for climate bill this year despite gloomy economic forecasts” – Platts says the following:
"Virginia Democrat Rick Boucher, a key member of the House of Representatives charged with drafting comprehensive climate change legislation, vowed last week to move legislation through Congress and to the president’s desk this year. And gloomy economic forecasts would not slow the pace of getting the GHG cap-and-trade bill through Congress, he said.
To the contrary, the climate bill would lead to a significant economic boom for the United States, according to Boucher, based in part on the volume of low-emission technologies that would hit the market, creating thousands of jobs and making the US a major exporter of these goods."
This is a common theme and one that is well worth discussing. By this I mean both the “green jobs” chimera and the companion notion that, once the US imposes some restrictions on ourselves, which so far only Europe has imposed on itself, the world will suddenly want goods that the US manufacturers will suddenly produce – but they’ll produce them only with mandates on the domestic market, mind you.
The “root cause” of this thinking seems to be a strain of American exceptionalism that says once the US government applies the spurs to US industry in the form of a threat to their competitiveness – possibly styled as a market opportunity to innovators – we will answer the call and produce stunning advances in “new” technologies pioneered anywhere from millennia (wind) to centuries (solar) ago.
Such thinking, increasingly fashionable on Capitol Hill, represents an understanding of rent-seeking, surely, if not so much of the actual market economy. In this specific context, however, it represents an amazing triumph of hope over experience. There may be something to that notion that the last people we want making laws affecting the economy are the lawmakers.
I am a firm believer in US exceptionalism, but not to the point of folly such as this requires. Reasons the above fantasy is implausible include that the EU economy is already larger than ours; you may have noticed that, despite having long mandated all sorts of global warming-style gadgets (the industries producing which being among the most feverish of Kyotophiles both here and there), they still are mired in deep unemployment when they apparently should be busy selling everyone windmills. What happened?
Is it, as John Kerry said in his “debate” with Newt Gingrich, that the US knows how to, e.g., “do cap and trade” but Europe doesn’t, and when we further strangle our available domestic energy sources on this front just as we have strangled domestic oil and gas E&P, we will suddenly show the world they couldn’t live without our solar panels?
I would like to hear some reasoned comments supporting this, preferably not from anyone affiliated with the windmill or solar panel industries or their affiliated advocacy groups (after all, if we at CEI have learned anything from these people, it’s that the people who support you dictate your stances…).
Please begin with telling me which countries have found themselves prosperous as a result of imposing GHG restrictions. The more detail the better – I’ve spent enough time looking to despair of ever finding this Wirtschaftwunderon my own – and especially baselines you are using to support your claim (having heard enough Kyotophile cheerleading to know that the baseline games are the first resort of such types).
Car A gets a fuel efficiency of 46 miles per gallon. Car B gets about 50 miles per gallon. Car A is called the Toyota Prius and is hailed by environmentalists as a step towards solving global warming. Car B, a new car called the Tata Nano unveiled by an Indian company, is reviled by environmentalists as disastrous for global warming. The New York Times devotes an entire editorial condemning the Tata Nano. Columnist and author Tom Friedman calls for the Tata Nano to be "taxed like crazy." The reason for this extreme criticism? The Tata Nano is cheap – very cheap. It is a revolutionary new car design that will cost only about $2,500 and will bring car ownership within reach of millions of new people in the developing world.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org