<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d5316950\x26blogName\x3dThe+Therapy+Sessions\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://therapysessions.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttps://therapysessions.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-419474042582634548', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>
The Therapy Sessions
Monday, May 10, 2004

Still skeptical

I read The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomburg about a year ago. I think it neatly sums up the way environmentalists think that socialism will solve the world's real and imagined environmental ills.

And it effectively demonstrates the way certain problems are exaggerated for political effect.

I believe that the globe is getting hotter.

I believe that human activity is playing a role in this.

But I don't believe that we can do anything about it.

Kyoto is a band aid, and it is not a very good one at that:

Lomburg explains part of the problem:
If politicians were to see The Day After Tomorrow and act on its agenda, what would happen? Implementing the Kyoto agreement on climate change would cost at least $150 billion each year, yet would do no more than postpone global warming for six years by 2100. That is to say, it would cause temperatures to increase slightly more slowly - the temperature we would have reached in 2100 without Kyoto, we would now reach in 2106.

But there's more...

Even if - and no one suggest this is possible - we were able to get the developed world to use 50% less petroleum in twenty years - what would we get?

Less demand would mean LOWER PRICES...uhh.. which would stimulate DEMAND elsewhere.

Since the cheap oil could no longer be burned in the US or Europe, the oil would be burned in the developing world - nations like China and India, who realized long ago that Kyoto would hamper their economic growth and secured themselves exemptions to its provisions.

These nations, incidently, have long burned fossil fuels in manners that are not very efficient. Cheap abundant petrol would merely encourage this. And emissions controls? They don't need no stinking emissions controls.

Kyoto is dumb idea being promoted a solution.

Even if it was adopted, it is doomed by its framers' own faulty grasp of ecomomics.

Powered by Blogger