Posted on 03/09/2011 5:18:26 PM PST by Mark Landsbaum
As the evidence continues to mount overshadowing the false claims of global warming catastrophe, the global warmists ratchet up their claims and their demands for money. At this rate, by the time everyone on the planet agrees there is no threat from global warming, the warmists will have everyone on the planets money.
The latest absurdity: The European Union will spend 270 billion ($375 billion) a year to cut greenhouse gas emissions . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at orangepunch.ocregister.com ...
What a bunch of morons!
And the money ends up where?Al Gore’s bank account?
How much to fight unicorns?
Bottom line: the person RUNNING the Euro AGW mitigation disaster (er, carbon-capping tax scheme) does NOT know how it will cost, cannot guess how much it will cost, does not know what the effect on global temperatures will be, and cannot even GUESS about how much it will affect global temperatures.
FergalR says:
March 9, 2011 at 3:35 pm Its the transcript of Andrew Bolt interviewing EU Carbon market official Jill Duggan whos in Australia trying to con them into accepting it.
The audio, thats already been linked, is here: http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8095 interview starts about 19 minutes in.
Melbourne Talk Radio. The Steve Price Breakfast Show. 9th March, 2011 ~8:20am
Transcript.
Steve Price: There are many experts on both sides of this argument Andrew.
Andrew Bolt: Yes.
SP: One of them is Jill Duggan. Shes with the European Union. She has managed Britains initial emissions trading scheme. Shes in this country to talk at a series of lectures and shes been good enough to join us on the line. Thanks for your time.
Jill Duggan: Good morning.
SP: The debate were having which Im sure youve heard resonating around the country since youve been here. Did Britain go through a similar spirited and vocal debate?
JD: Well, theres a couple of differences. Clearly industry in the UK were worried, in the same way that Australian industry is worried, because before the start of any new regulation or scheme . . . But it didnt have the same level of public recognition, I dont think. And I think that the public in Europe still dont really know that theyve got an emissions trading scheme.
AB: In part isnt it the case, Jill, that the emissions trading scheme was set so low the prices that people havent quite noticed it yet and that it hasnt actually stimulated the investment in green energy that is needed? And, in fact, Britain next year apparently is going to go to a Carbon tax of its own?
JD: Well its already got a Carbon tax, I mean, its not been a one-size-fit-all. Its not just been emissions trading in Europe its been a variety of policies. Actually the price of Carbon the Carbon price in the Emissions trading scheme in Europe is about 15 or 16 a tonne. Im not sure what that is in Australian Dollars its probably about $20 a tonne?
SP: A touch more. Probably almost $25.
JD: So thats the price and thats been the price for the last couple of years. I mean, we did get some things wrong in the very beginning and weve learned from those. I fully admit that one of the things that we didnt do was we didnt get companies to monitor and report their emissions prior to the start of the scheme. So when it was set up we did get the figures wrong in that first learning curve back in 2005.
AB: Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europes emissions by 20% by 2020?
JD: Yes.
AB: Can you tell me how much to the nearest billions is that going to cost Europe do you think?
JD: No, I cant tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that its cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so its cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.
AB: Right. You wouldnt quarrel with Professor Richard Tol whos not a climate sceptic but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin? He values it at about $250 billion. You wouldnt quarrel with that?
JD: I probably would actually. I mean, I dont know. Its very, very difficult to quantify. You get different changes, dont you? And one of the things thats happening in Europe now is that many governments such as the UK government and the German government would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.
AB: Right. Well you dont know but you think it isnt $250 billion.
JD: I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of figures.
AB: Thats right. You dont know but thats the figure that Ive got in front of me. For that investment. Or for whatever the investment is. Whats your estimation of how much because the object ultimately of course is to lower the worlds temperatures what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that investment?
JD: Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C so thats increases youve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.
AB: Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion or whatever you think the figure is what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the worlds temperature? Because thats, in fact, whats necessary. What do you think the temperature reduction will be?
JD: Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions. Its 500 or 550 million people. On its own it cannot do that. That is absolutely clear.
AB: Have you got a figure in your mind? You dont know the cost. Do you know the result?
JD: I dont have a cost figure in my mind. One thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.
AB: So if I put a figure to you I find it odd that you dont know the cost and you dont know the outcome would you quarrel with this assessment: that by 2100 if you go your way and if youre successful the worlds temperatures will fall by 0.05°C? Would you agree with that?
JD: Sorry, can you just parse that by me again? Youre saying that if Europe acts alone?
AB: If just Europe alone for this massive investment will lower the worlds temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C. Would you quarrel with that?
JD: Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise. Would it?
AB: Ah, no, actually it is, Jill. You see this is what Im curious about; that youre in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy. You dont know what it costs. And you dont know what itll achieve.
JD: Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.
AB: Well whats your modelling? Thats the one that everyones quoting. Whats your modelling?
JD: Well. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits. In Europe, Germany you could look at, theres over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies. In the UK theres many hundreds of thousand of jobs.
AB: Actually, thats not right, is it? I just saw research. Did you see this? Verso Economics saying that, for example, in Scotland the investment in green power has cost 3.7 jobs for every one green job created. And there are similar figures; Im looking at Italy here, Germany, Spain. Theyre all the same figures.
JD: Theyre not all the same figures. You can pick figures to support any argument. What Im saying is that the experience in Europe is weve done things well and weve had some things which we wish wed done differently at the start. The impact on the economy has been that it has stimulated growth in jobs that will last. Its not been noticeable in the impact on households. Not compared to gas and oil prices and the impact that they have on households. And that we actually have governments in Europe including the UK, Germany and France who are asking for tougher targets now. Now governments arent in the business of trying to undermine their economies. They want their economies to grow. If the UK, Germany and France did not believe that this was good for their economies and good for the planet they would not be asking for tougher targets.
AB: I wish I could believe that. Were talking about a region Europe that has unemployment at 10% and a growth forecast this year of 1.6%. I dont know what we could learn from Europe actually.
JD: Well. Europe is not all the same. Different bits of Europe have different experiences, clearly, and different economies. Germany is an economy thats a coal state like Australia and there may be things that you can learn from Germany. I would not pretend that the UK is the same as Australia. I recognise that Australia has its own special circumstances. But I think if you look at how you want an economy to grow over the next 40, 50 years then you can either embrace what is going to be the way forward and what the rest of the world is looking towards doing (including China and India) or you can say No, Im not going to look at this, Im going to stick with the same old ways of doing things. Now, actually, it takes time to change and it takes a lot of creativity and thought and Im not saying that every country in the world should change at the same rate. But this is a serious issue. I realise that Im talking to climate sceptics here.
AB: Ah, look, economic sceptics as well, Jill. Because, really, when you say for example that China and India will do something: they wont. China will, in fact, be responsible for more than three quarters of the worlds growth of emission in the next 20 years.
JD: Thats right. There are 1.3 billion people in China who would probably like the same standard of living that Australians enjoy. But they are also investing very heavily in wind. Theyre the largest manufacturers of wind turbines in the world now.
AB: We wont get into an argument because theyre building a coal-fired power station every week. Thank you for joining us.
SP: Jill, thank you.
AB: Im not persuaded Im afraid and Steven Im just astonished that someone selling a carbon emissions programme here, saying that Europe works, cannot tell us how much Europes costs and what it will actually achieve in lowering the worlds temperature.
SP: And she did say that 550 million people in Europe, acting alone, would not have any impact on global climate.
AB: So what does that say about Australia?
SP: One quick call.
AB: My God Almighty.
SP: Paul, good morning.
Paul: Good morning Andrew, Im praying: where can I donate? Please, that lady was just a clown. She doesnt know how much it will cost, what itll do and if itll make no difference.
AB: But weve got to do it anyway, Paul.
SP: Well, she was left speechless at one point.
Paul: Where do I donate money to get this interview published? Can it be an advert? Can it be run during An Inconvenient Truth? Please, Im praying, where do I give money?
AB: Paul, I tell you what, Britons will want to give money too because, listen to this this is how green policies have left Britain risking not having power when they actually need it. They had on just a couple of days ago, on the BBC, Steve Holliday whos the head of the national grid which distributes electricity around the country. He said because theyre ramping up wind power which he thought was good, global warming and all that people might have to get used to an economy where they could only use power when the wind blows.
Steve Holliday: We keep thinking about; we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. Its going to be a much smarter system then. Were going to have to change our own behaviour and consume it when its available and available cheaply.
SP: Theyll only have lights when the wind blows. Great stuff.
Info above about an Australian interview with the “person” ruining (er, running) this program ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.