Archive for the ‘bali’ Category

Bush announces bold inaction on climate change

April 16th, 2008 No comments

As I noted in my April 15 post,, President Bush has indeed just made a specific policy statement on climate change.

There is much in it to discuss – and disagree with – in what Pres. Bush had to say, but I think it’s fair to conclude that the speech was all talk and no action, and represents no act of leadership, at least with respect to domestic policy.  I’m not so sure that is anything to cheer about, regardless of one’s view of the science or whether the government ought to do anything about it, because, as I noted previously, in fact the Administration’s hand is being forced by court decisions.  Failure by Bush to propose a legislative agenda means we will end up not with a policy designed by the Administration or Congress, but with various uncoordinated ad hoc regulatory actions.  As a result, doing nothing is simply a surrender of responsibility.

So what does this speech do, other than in part to shift to Congress – the Congress that he held in check for seven years – the responsibility for regulatory actions that Bush clearly finds undesirable?   First, it appears that Bush is trying both to have his cake and eat it too at home, by conceding grudgingly that action is needed on climate change (if only to cope with a regulatory agenda that has forced on the Administration), but actually proposing no legislative agenda.  And on the international front, Bush appears to be trying to create some shred of credibility for upcoming talks later this week in Paris with Sarkosy and leaders of other major economies concerning progress under the “Bali Plan” climate agenda, which will be discussed at the G-8 summit in July.  It does seem clear that Bush is also insistent that China and India join any post-Kyoto plan (the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012), as a condition for any agreement by the US to take action, but whether his administration is actively making any efforts to persuade China or India is not so clear.

Interested readers should take a look, both at Bush’s speech, and at the Bali Plan:

Categories: AGW, bali, bush, China, climate change Tags:

Reducing CO2 vs. expanding energy needs

December 15th, 2007 2 comments

Ron Bailey of Reason, reporting from Bali, has an interesting post up summarizing the discussion by James Connaughton, director of President Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality, on one small aspect of the climate conundrum, namely, what would be actually involved in meeting the energy shortfall implict in targets to reduce CO2 emissions by half by mid-century.

 The crux?

Connaughton offered an interesting thought experiment. The major economies emit 22 gigatons (1 billion tons) of CO2 annually. In one reference case, those emissions would rise to 37 gigatons by 2050. So, Connaughton says, assume that we need to reduce current emissions by half from current emission—by 11 gigatons—to stabilize CO2 atmospheric concentrations. That means that the world would have to find the equivalent energy that producing 25 gigatons of emissions would have produced in 2050.

To get a handle on what this might mean, Connaughton asked, “How big is a gigaton?” One gigaton is equivalent to 273 coal-fired electric generation plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Of course, there are only a few demonstration plants now, and 273 plants represent 7 percent of the world’s current coal-fired generation capacity. Estimates of how much CCS might cost range between $150 to $250 per ton of carbon (or $50 to $80 per ton of CO2). By one estimate CCS would raise the cost of electricity to 25 to 40 percent; others suggest that the increase could be as much as 85 percent.

Connaughton also pointed out that avoiding the emission of a gigaton of CO2 implies building 135 new nuclear power plants. The world has 400 now. In addition, a gigaton is equivalent to 270,000 windmills which is 4-times more than are currently operating. Growing enough biofuels to reduce a gigaton of emissions would take an area twice the size of the United Kingdom. Of course, such projections rely on the deployment of near-term technologies. It’s impossible to tell what new technologies a higher price on carbon fuels might call forth from the world’s laboratories.

Categories: AGW, bali, bush, climate, CO2, Ron Bailey, targets Tags:

Bali: Murdoch & 149 Other Top Vile Collectivists/Capitalists Call for Global Poverty …

December 3rd, 2007 5 comments

and for a legally binding UN framework to tackle climate change.  Just who are these vile collectivists, red enviros, misanthropes, and others caught up in the totally groundless AGW hysteria?

[Snark Alert!]

Let’s go to FOX News – which headlines “Top Corporations Demand Action on Global Warming”  Fox says that “more than 150 global companies — worth nearly $4 trillion in market capitalization — have signed a petition urging “strong, early action on climate change””.  Amazingly, the news report ends with a disclainer:  “ is owned and operated by News Corporation, which is among the signatories of the Bali Communiqué.”,2933,314224,00.html

Just what the heck is going on?

On November 30, UK and EU Corporate Leaders Groups on Climate Change (spearheaded by the Prince of Wales) published the “Bali Communiqué”, by which leaders of 150 global companies encouraged world leaders to work for a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change.

The Bali Communiqué calls for:

  • “a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change”;
  • “emission reduction targets to be guided primarily by science”;
  • “those countries that have already industrialised to make the greatest effort”; and
  • “world leaders to seize the window of opportunity and agree a work plan of negotiations to ensure an agreement can come into force post 2012 (when the existing Kyoto Protocol expires)”

The vile collectivists provided the following business case:

“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change presents very serious global social, environmental and economic risks and it demands an urgent global response.

“As business leaders, it is our belief that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs of not acting:

“The economic and geopolitical costs of unabated climate change could be very severe and globally disruptive. All countries and economies will be affected, but it will be the poorest countries that will suffer earliest and the most

  • The costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change are manageable, especially if guided by a common international vision
  • Each year we delay action to control global emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that will likely necessitate even steeper reductions in the future, causing potentially greater economic, environmental and social disruption.
  • The shift to a low-carbon economy will create significant business opportunities. New markets for low carbon technologies and products, worth billions of dollars, will be created if the world acts on the scale required

“In summary, we believe that tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy. Ignoring it will ultimately undermine economic growth.

“It is our view that a sufficiently ambitious, international and comprehensive legally-binding United Nations agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will provide business with the certainty it needs to scale up global investment in low-carbon technologies. We believe that an enhanced and extended carbon market needs to be part of this framework as it offers the necessary flexibility, allows for a cost-effective transition and provides financial support to developing countries.”

Companies supporting the communiqué included the following:

US-based: Coca-Cola, Dupont, Gap, GE, Johnson and Johnson, Nike, Pacific Gas and Electric, Sun Microsystems and United Technologies.

European-based:  Anglo-American, British Airways, F&C Asset Management, Ferrovial, Nestle, Nokia, Rolls Royce, Shell, Tesco, Virgin and Volkswagen.

Australian-based: Insurance Australia Group, Macquarie, National Australia Bank, News Corporation and Westpac.

Chinese: Shanghai Electric, Zhufeng Technology and Suntech.

More here:

Well, it’s clear that they are all deluded and don’t care about impoverishing the rest of the world.  They certainly know nothing about science, economics or the potential difficulties that their companies might confront in facing the challenges that they allege.  They’re just sycophants and fellow-travellers of the evil, misanthropic “watermelon” enviros.

 In other words, there’s nothing here folks; move along.