Wednesday, 28 March 2007

Stern wants Australia to destroy its economy

This is the 91st post since Kerplunk began and in that time I'm reasonably sure that I haven't used a swear word. I might have, but can't remember.

However, after listening to Cimate Fascist and British 'economist' Nicholas Stern's prescription for Australia today I am sorely tempted to try and outdo not only those previous 90 posts but the entire swear count of the Pulp Fiction script, as well.

As reported by Reuters:
Australia needs to urgently ratify the Kyoto Protocol and slash its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60 percent by 2050 to help fight global warming, says British climate economist Nicholas Stern.

The former World Bank chief economist, speaking in Canberra, said the cost of inaction could be catastrophic, but rich countries were recognising the problem of global warming with firm emissions targets now set by Britain, France, California and the European Union.
As I pointed out a few days ago, setting 1990 as the base date significantly advantages Britain and France, as they were in the process of moving away from coal at that time and it was the worst year on record in Europe for all sorts of pollution. California has been signing a number of death warrants for itself in recent years, which have seen business flee the state in search of less burdensome tax and regulatory environments. The EU is simply a rule-making body that recently announced it intended to set a vehicle carbon emission limit somewhere only slightly above that of a Toyota Prius - a move that, if ratified, would kill 90% of European car manufacturers and take motor racing with it along the way.
Australia, though, alongside the United States, has refused to ratify the Kyoto pact, which sets goals for lowering the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warning, and has refused to impose binding targets on carbon emissions.

"What Australia can do now ... is set a target for reductions by 2050 of at least 60 percent as part of a rich world responsibility," Stern told Australia's National Press Club.

Canberra's refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol had held up international collaboration on climate change, he said.
Australia's gross CO2 output is globally insignificant. How is it that we're holding up 'international collaboration'? They could simply treat Australia like India or China. Doesn't hold up anything. If 'international collaboration' was the goal then why not press for every country in the world to sign up? The argument is as retarded as his own Review.
If Australia ratified the Kyoto protocol, the country would be put at a competitive disadvantage compared to countries which lacked a strong resources sector, Howard added.
And that's the problem with Kyoto - the end-user should pay the cost of the production of CO2 but that would damage Europe so they put the kibosh on that when we raised that issue some years ago.
During his visit to Australia, Stern has met Howard and centre-left Labor opposition leader Kevin Rudd, who has promised to ratify Kyoto if he wins elections due late this year.
There is no greater reason to vote against Labor than its feverish desire to rush, lemming-like, into the economic abyss of the Kyoto Protocol.
After six years of drought across much of Australia, and with water shortages in the country's major cities, climate change is shaping up as a key election issue.
If people think that drought and water shortages are caused by climate change then that shouldn't be the key election issue - education should - so that people can understand that an El Nino causes the droughts we experience and that it's unaffected by climate change. Our current water crisis has been caused by hopelessly incompetent state government management of water that has seen no new capacity added to the system in over 30 years, a time in which populations have risen by more than 50%.
Stern said rich nations needed to commit to curb greenhouse emissions by between 60 and 90 percent by 2050, with many countries starting to recognise the need for urgent action.
Seriously? 60-90 percent? How is that going to happen? All of our power will be nuclear. We'll have no cars and everyone will go to what jobs are still available in mass transport. Note that I say 'still available' because the unavailability of personal transport will kill off many businesses. Aircraft will run on what? Nuclear power? How will the greenies feel about that? Or are we all meant to go by boat, shackled to the oars like the days of old?
The U.S. state of California has set an 80 percent reduction target by 2050, Britain has agreed to cut its emissions by at least 60 percent, while the European Union will cut emissions by at least 20 percent by 2020.
Everyone agrees to targets but the fact is that nearly everyone is missing them. The terribly onerous penalty imposed has been to allow the targets to be reworked.
"There's starting to be a realistic judgment on the kinds of ambitions that the rich countries have to set themselves," Stern said. "And I think there is a growing recognition in the poor countries as well."
There certainly is a growing recognition in poor countries - that the world's Leftist elites are very happy for them to wallow in their existing turgid economic condition for the rest of eternity.

In a far-ranging report released last year, Stern said that stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would cost about 1 percent of global output by 2050, but failure to act could cost 20 times that amount.
We need to cut CO2 emission by 60-90% and that's only going to cost 1% of GDP? No wonder the economics of the Stern Report have been so profoundly debunked. It's hard to understand why anyone listens to the man anymore.

I can understand that he's cranky about the English cricket team losing The Ashes 5-0 last summer but consigning Australia to economic calamity by signing Kyoto seems a somewhat cruel and unjust punishment.
No wonder I want to let go with a bit of colourful language.

1 comment:

Dawgknot said...

The true test of the libbies is whether they would hop on board a serious effort to convert electrical power generation to nuclear power plants.

If their hearts are pure on the subject of global warming, they wouldn't hesitate.

Here's a great article in the WSJ today about the state of nuclear power plant technology.