Double non-AGW Whammy on the International Herald Tribune
Interesting choice in the Dec 10 paper edition of the International Herald Tribune, with an Op-Ed by Jeff Jacoby (“Skepticism on climate change“) and a full-page article by James Kanter titled “EU carbon trading system brings windfalls for some, with little benefit to climate” (this one featured in part on the front page too).
Jacoby’s point is quite simple: “skepticism and inquiry go to the essence of scientific progress“, hence all the calls for skeptical voices to be silenced or singled out for insults or worse remind more of the Spanish Inquisition than of serious attempts at preventing AGW.
(By the way…could anybody – yawn – please tell Al Gore – yawn – that it is logically idiotic to state that “Climate deniers fall into the same camp as people who still don’t believe we landed on the moon“?, because – yawn – the Moon landings belong to the past and climate change belongs to the future? – thanks!)
Kanter’s article goes at length to explain all that is wrong with the EU carbon emission trading system (“ETS”). No wonder its acceptance was suspiciously easy…:
After heavy lobbying by giant utilities and smokestack industries, who argued their competitiveness could be impaired, the EU all but scrapped the idea of selling permits. It gave them out for free, in such quantities that the market came close to collapsing because of a glut.
But in line with the original strategy, utilities in countries from Spain to Britain to Poland still put a “market value” on their books for the permits and added some of that putative cost to the prices they charged industrial customers for electricity. And they did not stop there. In one particularly contentious case, regulators in Germany accused utilities of charging customers for far more permits than they were entitled to
Rabid AGWers must be very wide-eyed people indeed, if they have allowed to happen under their watch absurdities such as the fact that the
“implementation [of the ETS] has been marked by maneuvers and adjustments to the original framework that have yielded significant cost benefits to many of the continent’s biggest polluting industries”
In other words, the first consequence of “environmental legislation on carbon emissions” has been rewarding the polluters, whole industries that frankly emit much more dangerous stuff than CO2.
Sadly, and paradoxically, little or no lesson has been learned. We are still hearing of “lofty goals”, that will be manipulated of course by the same polluters.
Looks even more lucrative than smuggling drugs, doesn’t it? And it doesn’t land you in jail…