Kyoto Sinks Europe

[Keepitsimple]

I hope Canadians are starting to wake up to the fact that we cannot blindly follow Kyoto - we must develop our own effective "Made in Canada" plan. Putting aside the Kyoto scheme for wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries, we cannot continue to chase poorly conceived targets that were abandoned by the Liberals and are now utterly unachievable. Here's an important article from the Financial Post but before you read it, please read what I think is a very good summary of Kyoto - excerpted from the National Post:

Climate change is an inevitable reality. Climate has been changing since long before the dawn of man, who surely could have played no part in the last half dozen ice ages. The critical questions are to what degree human activity is influencing the climate, and how far that activity might be modified to change that climate's future course. If we are truly in for a period of significant climate change -- man-made or otherwise -- the best "solution" is to rely on piecemeal human ingenuity, not grand top-down political solutions of the type that have always and everywhere failed in the past. Whatever the facts of climate change, drastic political action at a global level -- which isn't going to happen -- would achieve little or nothing. Drastic action at a national level would be sheer insanity.

Now, here's the "Kyoto Sinks Europe" article:

Wednesday » January 10 » 2007

Kyoto sinks Europe: Billions in costs make it more and more unlikely that the EU can continue to go it alone slashing carbon emissions

BENNY PEISER

Financial Post

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

A political drama is unfolding in Europe over the future of its Kyoto strategy. Its outcome will shape the future of climate policy and international negotiations for years to come.

At the heart of the escalating confrontation lies Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and mounting concerns about its prospective failure. The crisis centres on a fundamental conflict between economic realism and environmental idealism, between national interest and green ideology. It has exposed the increasing tension between Europe's green enthusiasm and the realization that its unilateral framework comes at a hefty cost that is beginning to erode the economic stability of a waning continent.

Carbon trading is the EU's principal strategy for meeting its Kyoto target of reducing CO2 emissions by 8% by 2012. The scheme was launched two years ago in the hope that it would achieve what more than 10 years of political commandeering had failed: significant reductions in CO2 emissions. Instead, year after year, most EU countries continue to increase their greenhouse-gas emissions. Rather than proving its effectiveness, the trading system has pushed electricity prices even higher while energy-intensive companies are forced to close down, cut jobs, or pass on the costs to consumers.

As the reality of economic pain is felt all over Europe, deep cracks in its green foundations are beginning to become apparent. Gunter Verheugen, the EU's industry commissioner, has warned that by "going it alone" Europe is burdening its industries and consumers with soaring costs that are undermining Europe's international competitiveness. Instead of improving environmental conditions, Europe's policy threatens to redirect energy-intensive production to parts of the world that reject mandatory carbon cuts.

Verheugen's warning reaffirms what U.S. administrations have been saying for many years. It is aimed at the rapidly evolving challenges posed by Asian competitors such as China and India that are set to overtake Europe's sluggish economy within the next couple of decades. Indeed, Europe's imprudent unilateralism is not only constraining its trade and industry; worse still, it has led to a significant slowdown in European R&D budgets, a sliding trend that is hampering the development of low-carbon technologies.

The ETS's malfunctioning is partly due to an inherent flaw that allowed member states to allocate more emission permits than European industrial plants actually needed. Although Europe's energy utilities receive carbon permits free of charge, they have passed on the market price to industry and private consumers. In consequence, Germany's energy costs rose by almost ?6-billion ($9.2-billion) in 2005, a price tag that is expected to double in the next couple of years. The cunning strategy ensured that power companies reaped billions in windfall profits. And yet without the massive sweetener, Brussels could not have gained the support of industry for this risky scheme.

The dodgy bargain ended in political fiasco: Last year, the trading scheme nearly collapsed as carbon prices crashed. In a desperate attempt to salvage an increasingly volatile system, Brussels has now slashed 7% from the National Allocation Plans recently submitted by EU member states from the second phase (2008-12).

The decision has been greeted with irritation and sheer anger in many European capitals as the damaging consequences become apparent. Germany's Economy Minister has called the cuts "totally unacceptable" and Berlin is threatening to challenge the decision in court.

As far as the imminent future is concerned, one thing is patently clear: After years of inflated promises that the Kyoto process would not upset their economy, European governments are beginning to realize that the era of cost-free climate hype is coming to an end. In its place, concern is growing that key industries and entire countries will pay a devastating price for Europe's reckless Kyoto craze.

The stakes are particularly high for Germany. Despite its customary role as environmental cheerleader, it has been hit hardest. Brussels bureaucrats have slashed more than 30 million tonnes from its annual carbon permit. It faces up to ?3.5-billion in fines if it cannot bring down emissions by 2008.

Germany is extremely vulnerable to imposed energy caps. It is strongly opposed to plans for replacing its coal-fired power plants with gas-fired facilities, as such a move would only increase its already precarious dependency on Russian gas imports. Furthermore, successive governments have agreed to shut down all nuclear power plants, which account for a third of Germany's electricity generation. The Greens' anti-nuclear achievement has thus turned ideological triumph into an energy nightmare.

To make matters worse, Germany's industry bosses have warned that they will not proceed with billions in intended energy investments should the government lose the bitter dispute with the European Commission over slashed emission credits. The EU has made clear that it will not yield to German demands, as this would destabilize its fragile trading scheme. However, should German companies be forced to buy carbon credits at higher prices, it will simply remove funds and economic incentives that the government had hoped would be invested in alternative technologies.

As the price for electricity, goods and services continue to rise and Asian competitors catch up with Europe's lethargic economy, the public is beginning to question Brussel's unilateral climate policy. According to a recent EU poll, more than 60% of Europeans are unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living in the name of green causes. As long as advocates of Kyoto got away with claims that their policies would not inflict any significant costs, many people were tempted to believe in improbable promises. Now that the true cost of Kyoto is starting to hurt European pockets, the erstwhile green consensus is unravelling.

Oblivious to its deepening isolation, Europe is trying frantically to salvage the political capital it has invested in the Kyoto process. China and India have consistently ruled out participating in a global emissions trading scheme. It is unlikely that their booming economies and growing consumer demands would cope with energy restrictions on their development. Just the thought of allocating carbon credits for up to two billion potential middle-class consumers makes the mind boggle.

In recent weeks, even U.S. Democrats have cautiously started to lower expectations. They now concede that even under a Democratic administration, the United States is unlikely to join any international climate regime that would exclude Asia's looming superpowers and burden its economy with unilateral obligations.

Political realists have absorbed these sobering developments. There are signs that they are preparing the public for the EU's ultimate exit from Kyoto-type treaties. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Chancellor Angela Merkel's climate advisor during Germany's EU and G8 presidencies, has suggested that G8 countries as well as China and India should adopt their own, national climate goals and policies, a loose road map that could replace the fading Kyoto treaty after it runs out in 2012.

What then are the chances that Europe's flagging climate policy will survive? The prospects are rather bleak. It remains unclear, however, whether the disarray over Kyoto and its rickety emissions-trading scheme will discourage others from getting their own fingers burnt.

- - -

- Benny Peiser is a researcher at Liverpool John Moores University in the U.K. and is the editor of CCNet.

© National Post 2007

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

Links: both articles can be found under FP Comment at:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/section...tion=FP+Comment

[White Doors]

Nice article. Thanks for sharing

[Catchme]

Well now, the title of the article is disengenous and does not match the content of the article and the article starts off with a erroneous premise in the first place. And why are we having continual environmental threads show up?

The title "Kyoto Sinks Europe" is not accurate. What is sinking Kyoto is (and the artcile actually says so if people read discerningly) greed and peoples not wanting to change their life styles.

First unfactual premise is:

Climate change is an inevitable reality. Climate has been changing since long before the dawn of man, who surely could have played no part in the last half dozen ice ages.

1. We have all saw the latest report posted here on other threads that came out stating humans are increasing the levels of carbon dioxide occuring naturally, and accelerating climate change. This means climate change can be slowed and stablized by lowering GHG emissions.

2. That point by the NP is a red herring, and/or a strawman propaganda technique.

The second point that it is Kyoto destroying the EU is refutted in their own words:

The Biggest factor in it its potential failure is greed:

Although Europe's energy utilities receive carbon permits free of charge, they have passed on the market price to industry and private consumers. In consequence, Germany's energy costs rose by almost ?6-billion ($9.2-billion) in 2005, a price tag that is expected to double in the next couple of years. The cunning strategy ensured that power companies reaped billions in windfall profits.

The next factor is:

According to a recent EU poll, more than 60% of Europeans are unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living in the name of green causes.

and another factor is:

Oblivious to its deepening isolation, Europe is trying frantically to salvage the political capital it has invested in the Kyoto process. China and India have consistently ruled out participating in a global emissions trading scheme.

The EU is having to go it alone, because other countries like Canada are not living up to the signed agreements. And because of greed and cheap manufacturing corporations are moving to countires that have no envirnmental regulations and cheap slave labour.

Again, this not Kyoto's fault but the fault of the some countries, and peoples, in world for not caring neough about destoying the world all in the name of profit, and I don't want to change my life style selfishness.

TheThe Stern Report out of Britian, should be paid attention to, and the recent report out of the USA linked in the other enivronmental thread here

I believe this article from the Financial Post is nothing other than propaganada in trying to bolster Harper et als indecent perceptions regarding climate change and global warming, and is trying to support the useless Clean Air Act, obliquely.

[Keepitsimple]

Well now, the title of the article is disengenous and does not match the content of the article and the article starts off with a erroneous premise in the first place. And why are we having continual environmental threads show up?

The title "Kyoto Sinks Europe" is not accurate. What is sinking Kyoto is (and the artcile actually says so if people read discerningly) greed and peoples not wanting to change their life styles.

First unfactual premise is:

Climate change is an inevitable reality. Climate has been changing since long before the dawn of man, who surely could have played no part in the last half dozen ice ages.

1. We have all saw the latest report posted here on other threads that came out stating humans are increasing the levels of carbon dioxide occuring naturally, and accelerating climate change. This means climate change can be slowed and stablized by lowering GHG emissions.

2. That point by the NP is a red herring, and/or a strawman propaganda technique.

The second point that it is Kyoto destroying the EU is refutted in their own words:

The Biggest factor in it its potential failure is greed:

Although Europe's energy utilities receive carbon permits free of charge, they have passed on the market price to industry and private consumers. In consequence, Germany's energy costs rose by almost ?6-billion ($9.2-billion) in 2005, a price tag that is expected to double in the next couple of years. The cunning strategy ensured that power companies reaped billions in windfall profits.

The next factor is:

According to a recent EU poll, more than 60% of Europeans are unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living in the name of green causes.

and another factor is:

Oblivious to its deepening isolation, Europe is trying frantically to salvage the political capital it has invested in the Kyoto process. China and India have consistently ruled out participating in a global emissions trading scheme.

The EU is having to go it alone, because other countries like Canada are not living up to the signed agreements. And because of greed and cheap manufacturing corporations are moving to countires that have no envirnmental regulations and cheap slave labour.

Again, this not Kyoto's fault but the fault of the some countries, and peoples, in world for not caring neough about destoying the world all in the name of profit, and I don't want to change my life style selfishness.

TheThe Stern Report out of Britian, should be paid attention to, and the recent report out of the USA linked in the other enivronmental thread here

I believe this article from the Financial Post is nothing other than propaganada in trying to bolster Harper et als indecent perceptions regarding climate change and global warming, and is trying to support the useless Clean Air Act, obliquely.

[White Doors]

Fact is, they implemented their Kyoto 'strategy' and it is failing miserably.

ergo, Kyoto is a flawed document.

[Riverwind]

The Biggest factor in it its potential failure is greed: ... The cunning strategy ensured that power companies reaped billions in windfall profits.

ROTFL, the entire premise behind emissions trading scheme is to use the market to reduce GHGs. However, the market is entirely based on greed so you should not be surprised that profiteering happens. Companies are in the business of making a profit - not saving the planet.

According to a recent EU poll, more than 60% of Europeans are unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living in the name of green causes.

I suspect the same stat is true here and nothing will ever change.

The EU is having to go it alone, because other countries like Canada are not living up to the signed agreements. And because of greed and cheap manufacturing corporations are moving to countires that have no envirnmental regulations and cheap slave labour.

It makes no difference if Canada participates or not as long as the US, India and China refuse.

[mikedavid00]

And why are we having continual environmental threads show up?

Didn't you hear? It's the number 1 issue for Canadians.

[Catchme]

The Biggest factor in it its potential failure is greed: ... The cunning strategy ensured that power companies reaped billions in windfall profits.

ROTFL, the entire premise behind emissions trading scheme is to use the market to reduce GHGs. However, the market is entirely based on greed so you should not be surprised that profiteering happens. Companies are in the business of making a profit - not saving the planet.

According to a recent EU poll, more than 60% of Europeans are unwilling to sacrifice their standard of living in the name of green causes.

I suspect the same stat is true here and nothing will ever change.

The EU is having to go it alone, because other countries like Canada are not living up to the signed agreements. And because of greed and cheap manufacturing corporations are moving to countires that have no envirnmental regulations and cheap slave labour.

It makes no difference if Canada participates or not as long as the US, India and China refuse.

I guess companies are very short sighted then in their greed. As their profits won't do them much good if there is no planet, or people.

Well at least if the other countries in the world reduced their own GHG, the irresponsible mass murdering actions of the USA China and India, would not impact so heavily on the world.

If people around the world refused to purchase or particpate in trade products and services with these nations they would soon have to change their tune. But the reality on the ground is greedy social psychopaths are going to greed the earth and humans into oblivian.

[Wilber]

The title "Kyoto Sinks Europe" is not accurate. What is sinking Kyoto is (and the artcile actually says so if people read discerningly) greed and peoples not wanting to change their life styles.

It couldn't just be because it is a bad plan.

[B. Max]

The title "Kyoto Sinks Europe" is not accurate. What is sinking Kyoto is (and the artcile actually says so if people read discerningly) greed and peoples not wanting to change their life styles.

It's not kyoto that is sinking. It is Europes economy. There is plenty of life style change. People will be losing losing their jobs and along with their homes and the gemeral ability to live. Maybe pretty soon we will be able to get the people behind kyoto and those that went along with it up on genocide charges.

[apollo19]

I think if anyone looks at Kyoto from a non-partisan standpoint, they will see that it is flawed and a do-nothing agreement. Yes, I'm sure through buying credits from other countries pollution will fall. It seems the only good way to get any significant movement on global warming is if every country individually works to reduce their GHG's, without any international framework. You can't have an international agreement like Kyoto without having an international government of sorts which could implement it... globalization isn't there yet.

[Catchme]

The title "Kyoto Sinks Europe" is not accurate. What is sinking Kyoto is (and the artcile actually says so if people read discerningly) greed and peoples not wanting to change their life styles.

It's not kyoto that is sinking. It is Europes economy. There is plenty of life style change. People will be losing losing their jobs and along with their homes and the gemeral ability to live. Maybe pretty soon we will be able to get the people behind kyoto and those that went along with it up on genocide charges.

Huh?

Why is it that people think unrestricted profits and destroying the environment on the part of corporations is just fine fine fine?

[B. Max]

The title "Kyoto Sinks Europe" is not accurate. What is sinking Kyoto is (and the artcile actually says so if people read discerningly) greed and peoples not wanting to change their life styles.

It's not kyoto that is sinking. It is Europes economy. There is plenty of life style change. People will be losing losing their jobs and along with their homes and the gemeral ability to live. Maybe pretty soon we will be able to get the people behind kyoto and those that went along with it up on genocide charges.

Huh?

Why is it that people think unrestricted profits and destroying the environment on the part of corporations is just fine fine fine?

The environment is not destroyed, that is just nonsense. All original wealth comes from the ground, that is a fact, and capitalism has created more wealth and spread it to more people than any other system ever. That is also a fact. Your entire statement is nothing but a bunch of commie BS.

[jdobbin]

BENNY PEISER

Benny Pieser is not a climate expert.

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

Sorry to shoot the messenger again.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser

[B. Max]

Sorry to shoot the messenger again.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser

Have you bought your carbon credits yet.

http://www.rightpoint.org/kyoto_hoax1.html

[jdobbin]

Have you bought your carbon credits yet.

http://www.rightpoint.org/kyoto_hoax1.html

I think the Tories are about to buy them. Still planning on voting for them?

[B. Max]

Have you bought your carbon credits yet.

http://www.rightpoint.org/kyoto_hoax1.html

I think the Tories are about to buy them. Still planning on voting for them?

No I'm still planning on voting for Alberta secession. The Tories may very well speed that vote.

[jdobbin]

No I'm still planning on voting for Alberta secession. The Tories may very well speed that vote.

They're doing everything you hate on the environment. I guess they believe there is very little they can't do that will affect their vote from the faithful.

[B. Max]

No I'm still planning on voting for Alberta secession. The Tories may very well speed that vote.

They're doing everything you hate on the environment. I guess they believe there is very little they can't do that will affect their vote from the faithful.

Then they would be wrong.

[Keepitsimple]

BENNY PEISER

Benny Pieser is not a climate expert.

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

Sorry to shoot the messenger again.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser

I wouldn't expect him to be a climate "expert" - that would make him biased - we've got too many of those already. This article is simply a summary critique of how the "process" is working and what the economic impacts appear to be. I won't take all his observations as gospel but it's a critique that is long overdue to be published on a more regular basis. After all, if we are asking countries to fundamentally alter their economics, wouldn't we all be wise to measure the results?

[jdobbin]

I wouldn't expect him to be a climate "expert" - that would make him biased - we've got too many of those already. This article is simply a summary critique of how the "process" is working and what the economic impacts appear to be. I won't take all his observations as gospel but it's a critique that is long overdue to be published on a more regular basis. After all, if we are asking countries to fundamentally alter their economics, wouldn't we all be wise to measure the results?

He's also being shown to be wrong on basic statistics.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Why is it that people think unrestricted profits and destroying the environment on the part of corporations is just fine fine fine?

I haven't really seen any evidence that the environment is being destroyed.

[B. Max]

Why is it that people think unrestricted profits and destroying the environment on the part of corporations is just fine fine fine?

I haven't really seen any evidence that the environment is being destroyed.

That's because there isn't any. What is being destroyed are economies, while we see the beginnings of the largest left wing created genocide in history.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2544525,00.html

[blueblood]

Why is it that people think unrestricted profits and destroying the environment on the part of corporations is just fine fine fine?

I haven't really seen any evidence that the environment is being destroyed.

That's because there isn't any. What is being destroyed are economies, while we see the beginnings of the largest left wing created genocide in history.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2544525,00.html

Oh thank you for that link that is pure gold! You've touched on another point in another thread.

[jdobbin]

That's because there isn't any. What is being destroyed are economies, while we see the beginnings of the largest left wing created genocide in history.

Now fully supported by your Conservative party.