$7 Trillion warning- Update

Here’s another review of the Stern report.

And another solution.

That’s what the headlines tells us global warming will cost the world if you believe one British economist. [isn’t there a quote about economists?]. It is considered significant because it “ the first such contribution
to the international debate on global climate change that comes not
from a scientist but an eminent economist
. ” [That may be true in Britain but in Canada anybody and their dog goose can make pronouncements on climate change.]

Why Sir Nicholas Stern’s voice is so influential is a question when –

A group of nine British economists, including former British cabinet
minister Nigel Lawson earlier described the Stern study as ‘a
misdirected exercise.’

Again the report makes the usual assumption- if we even accept that global
warming is real
– that man-made emissions are the culprit.

Even if the pace of growth of emissions did not rise beyond current
levels, the level of gases in the atmosphere would double preindustrial levels by 2050 to 550 parts per million. And based on current trends,[
based on models -you know like that model of the atom we studied in school] average global temperatures will rise by two to three degrees Celsius within the next half century compared with where they were prior to 1850.

It follows from that assumption of course that reducing those man-made emissions would have a meaningful impact.

Sir Nicholas argues that spending money now on measures to reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions will pay for themselves many times over.

Safe to say since it could never be proved otherwise.

In an effort to control the growth of greenhouse-gas emissions, radical action is required, including reducing the carbon emissions of the electric-power sector of the world economy by 60 to 70 per cent and an end to all deforestation.

The report estimates that deforestation already accounts for 18 per cent of global emissions

We are all for an end to deforestation for all kinds of reasons. [Just call us tree hugging hippies] But what about this study?

The scientific establishment’s early views on this subject – as expressed by the first
leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – have had to
be drastically revised.  In their own words, “early estimates of huge
losses of carbon from plants and soils due to biomass burning and deforestation
have recently given way to the idea of a terrestrial biosphere nearly
balanced (globally) with respect to carbon.”  What brought about this
change in thinking?  It was forced, as they accurately report, by data, and lots of it….
measurements of the atmosphere’s oxygen/nitrogen ratio clearly reveal the effects of fossil fuel burning; but deforestation, which also involves burning, provides
barely a hint of its existence in the data.

There are voices of reason but who will listen? One of them is the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute yesterday filed an amicus
brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting the decision of the
Environmental Protection Agency not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under
the Clean Air Act.  The amicus brief, filed on behalf of eight scientists
with expertise in climate sciences, disputes claims of global warming
catastrophe being made by
Massachusetts and other states in their
challenge to EPA….

The states and their allies largely rely on climate change models in their effort to force draconian EPA regulation.  But according to the CEI amicus brief, these models ‘are based
on assumptions of increases in carbon dioxide concentration that are well known to be substantial overestimates of what is occurring and what has occurred in recent decades.’

Moreover, a scientists’ brief supporting the states ‘mischaracterizes the effects of greenhouse gases on the globe’s temperature history, on hurricanes, on melting of ice and sea-level rise, and on health and mortality,’ concludes the CEI brief.  ‘It is simply
impossible to conclude that the net effect of greenhouse gases endangers human
health and welfare.’

They are very critical of the Stern Report.

The [Stern Report] report recommends a global emissions trading scheme, similar to the one in Europe that recently crashed — after driving up household energy prices and delivering windfall profits to energy companies but without reducing European emissions.

“This is ‚ÄòChicken Little’ stuff,” said Murray, “except that Chicken Little
wasn’t trying to scare the public in order to create
Enron-style con
and line the pockets of Wall Street investment bankers at the
expense of consumers
.’ [Link]

But people and governments, municipal and otherwise, fall over backwards to be scammed it seems.


Comments are closed.