July 10, 2008
Reflections on the G8 breakthrough
Even by the dismal standards of these events, this year’s G8 summit in Japan was a wearisome spectacle. I cannot think that what was achieved–nothing–justified the meeting’s doubtless impressive carbon footprint. I think I will remember it mainly for the quotation from IPCC head, R.K. Pachauri, who told reporters (according to the BBC) that the developed countries “should get off the backs of China and India” (and Pachauri wasn’t even at the summit; he was speaking in Delhi). Yes, I understand that he wants the rich countries to move first–but is it wrong to expect anything of the countries which before long will be the world’s biggest GHG emitters? I mean, isn’t the planet in peril, or something?
Aside from that, all you need to read is the all-purpose report on pointless international meetings by the FT’s Alan Beattie, which I saw on Gideon Rachman’s blog, and which deserves the widest possible circulation.
Wouldn’t it be the right thing to do for the advanced countries to move quickly on these matters, thus creating a ready supply of technology with lower mass-production prices?
These would then be ready for the emerging countries to buy without their committing more limited resources to development.
Bush has always been against meaningful action. Canada’s 30%-prime minister, Harper, is just a drone-like follower.
I’m not totally convinced myself that human activity is generating warming, but moving towards better technologies is itself worthwhile.
Just one example of many. Were we all using compact fluorescent bulbs, the need for new central power plants would be greatly reduced.
The mass production and gradual improvement of solar cells might eliminate the need altogether.
Similar benefits from improved storage batteries, low-resistance transmission lines, and new forms of heat pump.
If warming is generated by human activity, I remain a skeptic that we will be able to rise to the challenge. Our political institutions seem incapable of offering real leadership, except where war and killing are concerned. Then there’s always plenty of chest-thumpers like Bush and plenty of followers ready to pick up clubs.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | July 10th, 2008 at 1:22 pm | Report this comment(before making an all-to-common deranged attack on President Bush) Chuckman wrote “Wouldn’t it be the right thing to do for the advanced countries to move quickly on these matters, thus creating a ready supply of technology with lower mass-production prices?” assigns the state an impossible level of power and knowledge that can never be managed.
Advanced countries do not make technology. Humans and businesses do. If there is profit in making some type of green appliance, people will do it.
If there is only political meddling and pork barrel projects on alternative energy products, it is much more complex to successfully market a new product.
(my captcha is “shifty cuban” today, odd combo)
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 10th, 2008 at 4:08 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers,
The sense of your words is extremely naive, that of rather blow-hard Right Wingers who do not actually understand much economics beyond Economics 101 telling them about supply-and-demand and self-correcting markets.
There are many issues involved here involving market externalities, market imperfections, imperfect competition, social costs, social benefits, and the “free” cost of many resources used by industry.
Surely, even you recognize that America doesn’t have a huge nuclear industry only because of the day-to-day operations of the market.
Indeed, it doesn’t have a high-tech airplane industry for only that reason either.
It wasn’t the free market that built the Interstate Highway System.
Or Hoover Dam.
Or the airports and control systems that guide international air taffic.
Or thousands of other technologies and institutions affecting our lives everyday.
__________
“before making an all-to-common deranged attack on President Bush…”
Well, if it was deranged, why would you bother to answer?
Do you go about, Mr. Powers, answering the mumblings of the streetpeople on city streets?
That makes just about as much sense as your words diected at me if indeed you truly believe what you say.
But I’m sure you don’t. You are simply name-calling, rather than analyzing or contributing comments, just the sort of thing one might expect from a loyalist to America’s most incompetent president.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | July 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Report this commentChuckman,
Not much of an answer, just an identification of preposterous anti-Bush rhetoric of being symptomatic of the anti-arithmetic bias in the media.
The lack of grade school level calculation skills infects everyone from Al Gore to Joseph Stiglitz to the windbags (including both Sen. Obama and Sen McCain) now filling the airwaves with condemnation of Phil Gramm.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm | Report this commentThe IPCC and scientists wanting funding have a clear vested interest in AGW, and there are too many egos at stake now. Their predictions need published independant audits (temperature rises and where, water vapour levels, sea level etc). I suspect they would fail.
Whatever you feel about resource usage, if the models are wrong Kyoto and carbon sequestration would be really dumb (50% more coal to stick a fertilizer underground). Regulating co2 output is like squeezing a balloon, we will constantly be dealing with unintended consequences, excessive regulation and very expensive solutions.
Politicians should focus on agriculture, sewage treatetment, building standards, fuel taxes and bluesky research (i.e. stuff they can control)- not international co-operation and %ge c02 cuts 20 years from now. Who can predict how close to the goal you are on that, or what the price of carbon will be next year when you have no idea what technology you will be available then?
Posted by: larry | July 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers,
“The lack of grade school level calculation skills infects everyone from Al Gore to Joseph Stiglitz to the windbags (including both Sen. Obama and Sen McCain) now filling the airwaves with condemnation of Phil Gramm.”
Don’t laugh, but I’m interested in nominating you for the Nobel Prize in economics.
Nomination is a demanding undertaking, but I do feel that, in view of your remarkable native abilities, that it is is worthwhile.
You’ve obviously found flaws in the thinking of one of the world’s most eminent economists, Mr. Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner, former World Bank Chief Economist and professor at Columbia.
As many readers will understand, this is an unprecedented achievement on your part, a little like a Sunday School Teacher in Mud Flats, Mississippi, finding errors in Darwin.
But I am a little puzzled by the reference to Phil Gramm.
It does appear to come from nowhere, much like a cloud suddenly drifting across the sun, something having no logical connection with the main subject here.
So before I start filling in the forms, perhaps you would like to expand upon this mysterious reference.
I have no doubt there are deep thoughts involved, but their nature eludes me completely.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | July 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pm | Report this commentGramm has been roundly criticized, for pointing out the obvious economic condition of the country.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/09/mccain-adviser-addresses-mental-recession/
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | July 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pm | Report this commentJust to push the efficiency point home, the wsj reported in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121573566257544347.html that a incinerator in China paid for by the credits cost $100million. The cost of doing it through credits was $4.7billion+. Even if this were the biggest crisis facing mankind, I would have thought $4.6 billion would have had a better use than chinese and UN beaurocrats.
Posted by: larry | July 11th, 2008 at 3:37 pm | Report this comment