Lord Stern: Deny the whole USA trade if you don’t play the AGW game

Climate Wars: Nick Stern Threatens U.S. With Trade Boycott

The Times, 19 November 2010

Ben Webster

The United States will be banned from selling goods to many countries if it continues to shirk its promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to the world’s leading climate change economist.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said that nations that were taking strong action on emissions could start imposing restrictions on “dirty” US exports by 2020.

Lord Stern, who advises several G20 leaders and is one of the key players in the international negotiations seeking a deal on emissions, made his comments ten days before the annual United Nations climate change conference opens in Cancun, Mexico. They reflect the feeling in many countries that a lack of action on emissions in the US is delaying progress in the talks.

Lord Stern said that Europe and the Far East (sic) were forging ahead of the US in controlling emissions and switching to low carbon sources of energy. They would not tolerate having their industries undermined by American competitors that had not paid for their emissions. “If you are charging properly for carbon and other people are not, you will take that into account,” he said. “Many of the more forward-looking people in the US are thinking about this. If they see a danger on the trade front to US exports that could influence public discussion.”

Asked what type of US products could face restrictions, Lord Stern said: “Aircraft, clearly, some cars, machine tools — it’s not simply what’s in the capital good, it’s what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating.”

Lord Stern said that a complete ban on some goods was also possible. He said the American people should overcome their historical antipathy to taxation and accept that emissions needed to be controlled either through a tax or a trading scheme.

Full story (subscription required)

About these ads

409 thoughts on “Lord Stern: Deny the whole USA trade if you don’t play the AGW game

  1. Very Stern-like. What I don’t understand is why he doesn’t promote tariffs against China because their low wages and poor working conditions are clearly giving them a competitive advantage against the US and Europe.

    Is Stern an economist?

  2. We need to get this guy on TV over here. 5Mins of him will be worth a hundred studies of flawed methodologies and poor statistics.

  3. What a tosser…a UK economist saying that they will boycott the USA…..jeez…start a trade war that will, can’t wait. I’m sure you yanks are really quaking in your boots….Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    On the other hand …maybe he will be seen to be what he really is, now by his friend the UK Prime Minister David Camerlunatic and his ‘greenist’ party.
    Stern is an ecofacist…..

  4. Presumably the trade ban would extend to banning goods from China, India and now Canada, the list gets longer by the day.

    Who does Lord Stern think he is kidding!

  5. And imports from China and India will be banned when, exactly? If hypocrisy were gold, this guy could pay England’s debt himself.

  6. “American people should overcome their historical antipathy to taxation”

    Like the rest of the world just love to be taxed.

    We Brits have a word for people like ‘Lord’ Stern who spout such nonsense.

    The work is “plonker”.

  7. Another barmy Brit; he of the “stop eating meat” variety.
    I have no idea how the man became a professor, but he seems determined to stop breeding pigs and cows, because they contaminate the atmosphere with far too much methane, which he reckons is 23x more effective as a GHG than the dreaded CO2.
    Think it’s more like 26x, but don’t tell him.
    Also, don’t tell him that much of any methane ‘contamination’ did not come from domesticated animals, but from the Russian trans-continental pipeline, which they have now repaired.

  8. Lord Stern can take his “conceptual mistake” comments and go [/snip] himself. Making people pay money to a government whether directly or in the purchase of some good or service is a tax, no matter how you play the semantics game. They want to isolate us? Good. We’ll stop saving their [/snip]s when some dictator uses these same tactics to gain too much strength and takes over all of Europe. Enjoy your bullying of America Europe and Asia. Don’t come to us to bail you out of your self-imposed consequences. We’ll still be here and will be using all those horrible “dirty” fuels that we have an abundance of (which we’ll be able to do once the greenies here are told to go sit down and shut up).

  9. It won’t happen while the dollar is still world’s reserve currency. Just look at how flooding a few $100 billion into the monetary pool scared the world shitless.

    And that’s just the direct negative effects of such an action upon these countries’ economies. Can you picture the effects on Asia and Latin America if the US responded by instituting a “human rights tarrif” where we tarrifed goods made by workers in conditions that didn’t meet our standards – only foreign owned companies of course; American owned companies in foreign lands would be exempted?

  10. The gentleman has been singing this song for some time now, for example in OZ recently, because I suppose he feels it puts pressure on countries before Cancun.

    It is pure codswallop because the WTO regime does not allow for such a thing and countries do not start trade wars on the say so of eccentric economists: not least from one whose great report on AGW has been so thoroughly debunked.

    That is why I imagine he suggests that this will happen in ten years or so, safely far enough in the future to be forgotten by then. When it does not happen.

    Pure alarmist grandstanding with a bullying line mixed in. Just a different tack. How very unusual.

    One for the circular filing tray I fancy.

    Kindest Regards

  11. I see myself as more Scottish than British, but all the same I would like to apologise profusely for the imbecilic utterances of Lord Stern on behalf on the all or at least the majority of people from these isles.

  12. By 2020, Even this idiot will have asked a few farmers whether crops grow better at 12 degrees C (54 F), the current average global temperature, or at 22 degrees C (72F), the norma and maximum per the 600 million year fossil record.
    By 202, a few people will have found out what photosynthesis is, and will have decided this idiot would cause the death of half the human race and thousands of extinctions if we act on his advice.

    We have nothing to worry about on this boycott threat.

    Just the possibility that anybody WILL believe him enough to act and more countries will follow Zimbabwe’s example of anything but “carbon” and destroy the biosphere.

  13. What an idiot , one sure fire way to get the USA’s back up is pushing ideas like this , meanwhile both China and Indian will tell him were to stick the idea too. So what is left a handful of EU countries that is until election time they laws which will mean massive increases in prices will look at as popular as fish that has been dead for 2 weeks.

    Lots of talk and threats and nothing to back them up with , sadly for Stern he is looking increasingly unlike to be making big money out of carbon trading any time soon. Never mind.

  14. This is the world’s “leading” climate change economist?

    Good luck with that boycott, Nick, you’ll need it. Something tells me that England needs us more than we need them. Just because the Brits decided to gut their economy doesn’t need we need to follow them down the tubes.

    And as for his thought that “… the American people should overcome their historical antipathy to taxation and accept that emissions needed to be controlled either through a tax or a trading scheme…” I have two words – Screw you.

  15. Anger and then despair. These folks have invested their lives and reputations to this hoax. They will fall really hard if they can’t get their way.

  16. What makes this begger think he can tell Americans what to do? Everybody loses in a trade war. What promise? I don’t recall the Senate ratifying any promise. Quite the opposite. “Forging ahead?” Sounds like fabricating a loo; makes me want to go join a Tea Party. This flamboyant, spittle-spewing posturing is another example of the End of Warmist Days, as the wheels come off the worldwide hoax.

  17. This is the type of comment I like from these people, they have no idea how to address people who are not fooled by their self important rhetoric. More to the point it puts the back up of people who have not yet abandoned the AGW hype. Bring it on lord Stern you have my blessing.

  18. Why do the greens always harp on the US emissions.
    China by 2020 will be burning coal like a speeding locomotive

    Will the worlds countries stop buying “dirty” Chinese exports?.

  19. Let me help you out here Lord Stern.
    The USA will default on it’s national debt and financial obligations.
    It is a mathematical certainty the USA will have a complete and total economic collapse.
    The rest of the world will cut the USA off from trade with them because we are a deadbeat nation.
    The USA will make it own little trinkets, bobbles and whatever other electronic crap its people want to buy., right here in our own land mass.

    Lord Stern, please don’t try to rationalize why the rest of the planet will stop trading with the USA. You just sound silly, uninformed, and kooky with your rationalizations.

  20. Let them have it, these arm twisting bunch of crackpot brags.

    Don’t send a single US made product to Europe, ban all the use of US patents, withdraw all American companies, close US Air Space for European aircraft and withdraw all US forces.
    And the next time these EU hacks need to be liberated, screw them all.

    Arrogant bastards.

  21. I say go ahead USA – don’t sell your goods to any nations that blackmails or terrorises you, whether the threat comes from some medieval caveman in Tora Bora or from a “climate change economist”. Don’t sell them any of your patented products or license them any of your patents and see how long they last.

  22. A comment was made this summer that is telling on this topic. To paraphrase, leftists were saying that the way to help Obamba is to do things that forces him to act. Now, some of it was directed towards violent actions, but this commnent reminds me of that. For someone in the G20 to say that America will be cut off if we don’t push climate legislation would give Obamba an opportunity to enforce it as a national security item, or regulatory edict to claim it was done to save America.

    I really don’t like Progressives.

  23. To friends in the USA – don’t panic.

    Stern is a born-again idiot who resides in an asylum for un-elected fraudsters called The House of Lords. He wrote a bizzare report a couple of years ago on the economic impact of CAGW that sought to enrich his cronies with shares in wind farms. His rantings made Jones, Mann, et al look like reasonable scientists – only Gordon Brown took it seriously.

  24. “it was a “conceptual mistake” to see charging for emissions as a tax”

    If you are a government and you are taking money out of my pocket it is a tax. Is that concept too hard for them to understand? Maybe he thinks “carbon user fees” are not a tax?

  25. The Marxists are getting impatient and revealing themselves. They subverted the democratic electoral processes to install their own leaders. When the electorate rebels, the Marxists then disenfranchise the electorate. When the electorate protests their being disenfranchised, the Marxists resort to executive orders, diktat, and finally open dictatorships. It appears that Lord Stern has grown impatient enough with the opposition to the Marxist redistribution of wealth to invoke worldwide economic warfare.

  26. LOL. No one can stop trade to penniless Iran, North Korea or a myriad other countries that are problematic. And this jack ass thinks he is going to embargo the USA? Please. Some one convince the good Lord to lay off the hard stuff.

  27. Would they do the same to China?

    If the US reduces emissions, manufacturing would be reduced, reducing exports, or if the US doesn’t reduce emissions, exports will be boycotted. It looks like the US is doomed no matter what.

    It won’t happen!

  28. I always thought he was nuts but this confirms it. What country in it’s right mind would start a trade war with the US – the largest trading nation in the world. Stern started much of the global warming nonsense and seem to think that his ideas still have value in the real world. This is almost on a par with geo-warmists wanting the flood the atmosphere with sulphur dioxide from volcanoes they’ve activated to “cool the planet”.

  29. Lord Stern must be afraid that Great Britain’s Green suicide program will bankrupt the country before the US.

  30. I suppose this Stern moron doesn’t know that we can deny access to our markets for countries that want to play that game. We are not only the largest exporter in the world. We are also the largest importer.

  31. Whatever the merits of reducing carbon emissions, this is typical UN bashing on the USA. It’s in the same category as putting Libya on the Human Rights Commission. The UN and its political positions have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with schoolyard politics.

    Really: all first-world countries should drop out of the UN and let it collapse under its own, corrupt weight. Start over with a new organisation. The new one will also eventually become corrupt, but sometimes you have just got to clean house.

  32. I don’t have the links available right now, but I believe the record shows that the U.S. has a better record of reducing CO2 emissions than the EU, since they collectively embraced their carbon trading scheme.

  33. Give me a break !

    China’s already passed the U.S. in carbon emissions due to its rapid industrialization and electrification. In ten years it will be emitting even more and exporting even more goods. Will Lord Stern suggest barring the importation of Chinese goods then ? Thoght not.

  34. This is simply unbelievable! So, China etc are “polluting” less? What planet is he on? Pity snow won’t fall on Cancun …. please, please let it snow.

    Seriously, this man has caused all sorts of damage with his estimates that its better to trash western economies than adapt to whatever warming there may be, and on the assumption that cutting emissions will work anyway.
    I don’t like cold but a cold NH winter may slow the CAGW/Change/disruption train a little.

  35. Stern admits that adopting the logic of AGW destroys economies.

    Stern’s emissions are more toxc than CO2 ever was

  36. So now we can add trade wars to the list economy destroying costs that will follow the imposition of stricter limits on CO2 emissions. But, but, what about all the green jobs that will be created? LMAO.

  37. I wonder where Stern has his investments. One can readily see his socialist tendencies as he clearly is encouraging trade embargoes.

  38. Wow, that would be great; the reciprocal complete trade ban on imports would be the single largest job creation and wealth retention move of all time.

    The Unites States (senate killed climate bill) and Canada (senate killed climate bill) would have to go it alone for all manufactured goods. Cars, Shoes, Televisions, Phones, Aircraft, Machinery, Computers, Wine, Spirits, Appliances, etc; all the stuff North America currently imports, the stuff that used to be made in North America before the jobs were shipped overseas.

    North America would have full employment.

    Of course the rest of the world would get a bit hungry in about 40 days, but that is their decision.

    It would be wonderful.

    The United States Largest Trading Partner is Canada
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States

    Canada’s Largest Trading Partner is the United States
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_Canada

    Together the United States and Canada have enough natural resource (energy, water, minerals, lumber, etc) to keep going for a long, long, long time.

    Bring it on!

  39. Lord Stern said that Europe and the Far East (sic) were forging ahead of the US in controlling emissions and switching to low carbon sources of energy. They would not tolerate having their industries undermined by American competitors that had not paid for their emissions.

    The “Far East” is controlling its emissions? Does that include China where they are building new coal fired generators almost on a daily basis?

    It seems that Stern is confusing paying for emissions with controlling emissions. The EU and a few other countries have damaged their economies and now demand that the US do the same to level the playing field.

  40. Stern is missing the main point though. Given that India, China and the USA are not interested in CO2 mitigation (unless we transfer wealth to them in compensation), we are left with Europe pretty much raising its own trade barriers against everyone else. He seems to be under the impression it’s the US against the rest of the world. Well, it’s quite the opposite!

  41. There’s sod-all from the US on sale here in the UK as it is. In fact there is sod-all from the UK on sale here either. Instead, the stores are crammed with goods made in China, so I can’t imagine why Lord Stern doesn’t single China out as the dirty producer to end them all.

    I long ago gave up trying to avoid buying Chinese tat because it’s completely displaced better quality products in the marketplace. If Lord Stern can impede the flow of sub-standard rubbish into this country even if his reasons are silly, I’d be quite happy.

  42. So is he proposing to ban import of rare earth metals (critical to almost all green technologies) from China because of the filthy, polluting industrial processes used in their extraction and refining, or is communist pollution somehow more acceptable than capitalist pollution?

  43. There isn’t a single European country in which such a ludicrous idea would get any support. The EU is already fighting for its existence as it is. Any kind of trade war (with our only real ally!) or even hint of a trade war will tip it over the edge. The AGW nutters have now completely lost grip on reality…

  44. This sounds like the bluster of a desperate man. Likely he is heavily invested in European Carbon Credits, and sees the market is about to tank.

  45. Lord Stern is global warming fanatic. He has been calling the shots in the UK on emissions (CO2) reductions for years and firmly believes that the UK will be under water before long. He is an economist however with very little grasp of the science – a kind of English Al Gore – without the Peace Prize.

  46. I think Europe should keep its gas guzzling Mercedes and Volvos and BMWs.
    While they are at it they can keep their stinking AirBuses as well.

  47. We could dress up as Green Weenies and dump their carbon permits into Boston Harbor and…nah, it’s been done before. They lost that time, too.

  48. Lord Stern,

    We will remember this if the United States ever has to come to the aid of your country again. Imagine if we had kept our dirty exports of tanks, guns, ships and planes during WWI and WWII?

  49. 1) He’s making the wrong assumption that if CO2 were indeed a problem, the solution is that “emissions needed to be controlled either through a tax or a trading scheme”. Typical government taxation knee-jerk to a technical and economic problem. There are lots of ways to reduce CO2 production that do not include taxation or trading. For example, expedited permits for nuke power plants, like the Asians are doing now (24 in construction in China, 6 in Korea, 2 in Japan, 0 in US). Every coal plant blows about 20,000 tons CO2 per day and the US has hundreds of coal plants.

    2) The US should charge the EU for the CO2 emissions from train transport of goods across the US on their way from Pacific Rim factories to Europe. Currently, most shipping is too big for the Panama Canal, so containers from Asia are unloaded at US western ports, travel to the Atlantic coast on the railroads, then loaded onto ships to Europe.

    3) This is a hidden subsidy for Airbus. Notice his first industry to penalize is aircraft. That’s Boeing, folks.

    4) The US needs to charge China for the CO2 emissions of cement production. The US is a major exporter of cement to China, and cement production generates large amounts of CO2. After all, China will not be held accountable as Lord Stern wants the US to be.

  50. I think the USA should cut itself off from the rest of the world for 5 years completely and totally.

    Our electronic technological innovation spills out of our country like a geyser, and the rest of the world gets our technology to use practically for free.

    Can you imagine how much more technologically advanced the United states would be than the rest of the planet on day one after the 5 year self imposed moratorium on giving away our knowledge?

    At the end of the 5 year period, our technology would be worth 100 times more to the world, and then we could actually get the money that it is worth than we are getting for our intellectual knowledge today.

  51. After England pillaged the world (back then…) now they want to redistribute other people’s wealth. Lord Stern needs to be reminded that India and Canada are part of the Empire, the Commonwealth. Those measures won’t go very far and fall in the Thames waters.

  52. Of course the USA could just drill it’s own oil, mine it’s own coal and grow it’s own food. One of the unique advantages of being a continent. Look at all the jobs that would create. And think how easy it would be for us to just build our own nuclear power plants … One of the advantages smart people have.

    All they want is they think we are going to give the scammers money so they can play God with the world’s less fortunate people. It’s the ruse of tyrants throughout the ages.

  53. Is the sad pillock trying to start a war now (trade or worse)? It’s one thing to spout a load of empty rhetoric and bravado with Can/Cantcun coming up but this is completely off the wall. The man is clearly barking. For some obscure reason he always puts me in mind of Lord Haw-Haw

    Watermelon calling … Watermelon calling. Get your worthless fiat carbon credits here.

  54. harrywr2 says:
    November 19, 2010 at 9:52 am
    While they are at it they can keep their stinking AirBuses as well.

    …..Their exploding up Air-Buses :-)
    BTW, it seems that in their effort for making Green airplanes they have exaggerated and made them from a wafered material: Aluminum-Carbon Fiber-Aluminum, in this order, which is : Conductor-dielectric-conductor = A flying condenser, ready to blow up… if there is some charge around.

  55. Lord Stern really knows how the world works. Now, let’s determine climate policy on coercion. (aka, the Lord Butt?)

    If everybody else is jumping off a cliff, should we jump, too? NO!!!!!

    His idea is to cripple ALL economies at the same time. It’s just not fair if everybody does not shoot themselves in the foot at the same time. There country with two feet would have the unfair advantage, of being sane as well as right.

  56. ” a lack of action on emissions in the US is delaying progress in the talks”
    Which progress?
    Where are the people now, telling us in the past to stick with science, not politics here?
    It’s all about politics, not environment anymore.

  57. steveta_uk says:
    November 19, 2010 at 9:07 am

    We Brits have a word for people like ‘Lord’ Stern who spout such nonsense.

    The word is “plonker”.
    ————————————————————-
    Close, Steve. The word I was thinking of rhymes with banker

  58. Pitiful, ain’t it?

    Just as our then-current understanding of the universe’s physical laws made it clear from the beginning that the atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing mechanism at the root of the preposterous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis couldn’t cause significant climate change when this nonsense was first bruited by third-rate idiots masquerading as climatologists more than thirty years ago, a reasonable knowledge of the laws of economics informs the reader here that the fantasmagorical threats of sanctions proposed by Lord Stern of Brentford would have no effect whatsoever as an inducement for civil government in these United States “to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Just how is it that this Nick Stern character is supposed to be “he world’s leading climate change economist,” anyway?

    Insofar as I’ve been able to determine, he doesn’t seem to understand anything about political economics if he thinks that foreign government policies restricting purchases of U.S. manufactures could have any impact whatsoever upon the electoral choices of the citizens of our Republic. We just finished slaughtering the “global warming” freaks of the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) in the midterm elections, and the junior chamber of the incoming 112th Congress – you know, the House of Representatives, which is responsible for setting the federal budget – is getting ready to de-fund the EPA is our Fraudulence-in-Chief persists in using that agency to criminally impose carbon dioxide emissions restrictions on the people of this country.

    Not to mention the fact that some several states’ legislatures (which went overwhelmingly over to Republican Party control on 2 November 2010) have been ever more seriously considering secession as a means of securing needed relief from the economic devastation being imposed upon them from Mordor-on-the-Potomac.

    Lord Stern can propose a beat-down on Boeing, f’rinstance, which would hurt the daylights out of interests in Kansas and Washington State. But would the people of Texas give the least little bitty damn?

    And considering what Lord Stern’s desired “greenhouse gas emissions” cuts would do to the Lone Star State, if our criminal President-With-An-Asterisk were to attempt such measures, we might just see the first of these United States repudiate federal control altogether, declaring all these EPA regulatory measures null and void within their jurisdictions.

    Next step might then be for the legislature in Austin to enact a law requiring every candidate for President of these United States to put before the state government documentary proof of eligibility under Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, or he doesn’t get onto the ballot in Texas.

    So where’s your birth certificate, you slimy bastich?

    Lord Stern of Brentford needs to learn to live with disappointment, the stupid schmuck.

  59. …he said, adding that it was a “conceptual mistake” to see charging for emissions as a tax.

    Maybe if we just call it Cash Flow Disruption…

  60. The main thing I see in these comments is a lot of ‘Brit bashing’. As an ex Brit now living in Canada all I can say is – please remember that it is not the voice of the people you are hearing when you see these stories. The majority of Brits have a great deal of respect for America and spitting venomous threats to each other over the pond isn’t going to make this any better. The sooner the idiots in charge realize this (or get kicked out), the happier everyone will be in both countries.
    I am sure there is a great deal of discontent in the UK right now as the voters have no viable options to vote for – all sides are green – so please don’t kick the people while they are down because the upper levels are frittering away their livelihood on a global p*ssing contest.

    Here’s hoping the whole thing collapses soon so they can keep the lights on,

    Tony

    [Reply: Thanks for making that distinction. The problem is government, not the governed. ~dbs, mod.]

  61. Lord Stern will soon realize his hot air rhetoric will just fuel the flames of protectionism. The EU needs North America more than North America needs them. When he finally realizes this he will shut-up or be shut-up.

  62. “Jeremy says:
    November 19, 2010 at 9:13 am
    Usually it’s a bad idea to threaten America.”

    Except this time, President Obama will probably apologize.

  63. Jack Maloney says: “We could dress up as Green Weenies and dump their carbon permits into Boston Harbor and…nah, it’s been done before…”

    Still, I like it.

  64. When we Brits start to blackmail you Yanks, you know the game is up! The whole AGW business was created by “scientist-politicians” in the US/UK, and there’s no point in bleating now that the senior partner has finally seen the light. I always believed that only America could get us out of this mess, lead by the pragmatic common sense of her people.
    O/T: Writing as a proud Englishman, I would have very much preferred that we had become a US State, rather than a region of the EU, but were never given the option. However, it may not be too late yet, so if the response to this proposal is positive, I’ll start my own blog site – WUWT!

  65. Oh, the poor warmies are getting desperate now.

    The problem is that there’s no downside for these clowns. When we finally get this filthy rock flipped over and expose all the dung beetles like Stern to the light of day, they’ll just bank their money from this scam and scurry on to the next rock.

  66. Hmm. I think I remember something about Tea, Boston Harbor, and an English
    King. Oh yeah! Taxes were involved there too…

  67. Nicholas Stern (extract from Wikipedia)

    After his time working for the World Bank, Stern was recruited by Gordon Brown, he was, in July 2005, appointed to conduct reviews on the economics of climate change and also of development, which led to the publication of the Stern Review. At the time, he ceased to be a second permanent secretary at the Treasury though he retained the rank until retirement in 2007; the review team he headed was based in the Cabinet Office.

    It was reported that Stern’s time at the Treasury was marked by tensions with his boss, Gordon Brown.

    Several Whitehall sources told The Times that Mr Brown did not like some of the advice he received from Sir Nicholas, including some “home truths” about long-term trends in the economy and he never broke into the chancellor’s tight-knit inner circle he subsequently lacked a real role and spent most of his time working on major international reports on global warming and alleviating poverty in Africa. His doom-laden report on the risks of failing to address climate change, published in October, caused tensions within the Government by triggering a debate on environmental taxes and leading to calls for big policy changes.

    —————————————————————————-
    This guy is a proven ‘birk’ aka of the educated idiot type. As you can see this person even failed to impress Gordon Brown. That is could be considered as being the ‘Gold Standard’ of failure.

    He failed to see the significance of the closure of steelworks in Britain to be shipped to India in economic terms while he was still ‘advising’ Brown. Never mind the loss of 5000 jobs in Britain. I suspect he would even sanction the import of the steel from India where it is smelted by electric energy produced from coal fired plants.

    Douglas

  68. He must have a lot invested in the Carbon Trading Market and is getting scared of losing his cash when it goes belly-up. Follow the money – perhaps he put all his pension pot into renewables!!

  69. Will he be applying similar sanctions to China or India I wonder?

    I understand that dirty coal power stations in China are a significant contributor to soot in our atmosphere and deposited on our ice reserves. Rumour has it that this is rather more potent at melting ice than seeohtwo.

    I’m sure LORD Stern will be rigorous in tethering sanctions to causes, which may mean minor readjustments to his proposals in the face of evidence-based assignation of appropriate blame……

    Won’t he????

  70. I realise that it is fun to bash the Brits but I would like to point out a few things
    This idiot is nothing to do with our present government
    He was given the task of writing the “Stern Report” by the socialist lot we kicked out at the last election.
    He is in the House of Lords but that means absolutely nothing in this case especially as he was nominated by the aforementioned socialist lot.
    He is an out and out activist (Chair of The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment) and will hopefully be ignored.

  71. It sounds like this idiot has found a way to finish off the EU. It isn’t like they aren’t hanging by a thread or anything. I bet Spain, Greece, and Ireland just can’t wait to boycott the US. Wait! What is that sound? Sounds like flushing …

  72. First off, no apologies please from you fine WUWT Brits because I don’t want to apologize for my idiot leaders here in the states, you are hereby absolved.
    Second, R. DeHann, thanks for the video, oh my god! The very idea that those MPs on the video had no notion of your public debt is frightening. It reminds me of when Howard Waxman was asked if he thought that there would be a point of taxation at which people lost their incentive to produce wealth replied that he had never thought about that.
    Third, if we don’t reign in this public spending/growth madness the whole notion of actually being able to do something about CO2 if it has to be dealt is mute, we’ll all be worried about eating.
    Forth, expansion of national debt is the road to serfdom, you and I should never tolerate it nor tolerate idiots like Lord Stern.
    Fifth, sorry for the ramble, can see straight after stuff like this.

  73. Isn’t the US currency really backed by plutonium and tritium (not gold)? Would one really want to cool things off with a little nuclear winter? All it would take is a wacko taking over the U.S., Russia or China. We really need to work this all out together and forget the theats.

  74. Nusquam Nihil says:
    November 19, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Pound salt my lord.

    Or the equivalent: “Pound sand, my lord.”

    Might I add, blackmail on a global scale? That’s not surprising–last thread I called it theft on a global scale!

    And these are the jokers that want to be in charge of Global Governance. They must be taking lessons from the devil himself.

  75. That Sword cuts both ways. I can see it now U.S. made sold to China, resold to UK. Does the he, Al, Soro and the UN think they can control a true free market? This will open up more Black Markets.

  76. Funny, I was just thinking about how the American worker could probably use a good dose of protectionism right about now. Odd, though, I was thinking of it in terms of the Chinese and their currency protectionism. But no matter……

    One of the many beautiful blessings that comes with being in America is the knowledge that there is very little we can’t provide for ourselves.

    Metals in the ground, ………………………………………………..check
    Natural fuel resources………………………………………………..check
    Food………………………………………………………………………..check
    Technology sufficient for social-economic advancement…check
    Sufficient labor force…………………………………………………..check

    playmates in a trade war………………………………………………?????

  77. I suspect that it is all a distraction … trying distract from the size of the UK National Debt and the fact that the power might be off for people over winter …

  78. Stern’s report was so rubbish that it seems he’ll actually want the world economies to contract through trade wars just to ‘prove’ he was right. As Professor Richard Tol expressed it: “If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a ‘D’ for diligence; but more likely I would give him an ‘F’ for fail…There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make…Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts.” If the report is so wrong, why not try to cripple the world to make it right?

    Stern and the Grantham Institute he heads up (whose spokesman is the infamous attack-dog Bob Ward) are bankrolled by billionaire fund manager Jeremy Grantham, who also bankrolls WWF, Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists and a whole host of Green-hell advocacy groups, and the Obama presidential campaign. Grantham is about as deluded as it’s possible to be on the climate issue, but like Al Gore he’s sure to make as much money as he can out of it. He tells his investor clients (July 2010) “Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. ” So gimme your money.

    Grantham’s delusions are effusive in the same article: “I have a much simpler but plausible “conspiracy theory”: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. Why are we arguing the issue? Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy. Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments. In short, they are conservatives by training: never, ever risk overstating your ideas. The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot. They are also well-funded…The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down.”

    Yeah, right. The science is settled and anyone who disagrees is in the pay of Big Oil. To try to redress the balance, Grantham pours hundreds of millions of dollars into ecofascist propaganda. Jeremy Grantham and his wife have bunged at least GBP12 million to the organization that Stern heads up, so they definitely want value for money. Stern has to keep ‘on message’ to keep the funds flowing and be seen to be doing a good job as chairman.

  79. http://www.uni-protokolle.de/nachrichten/id/186585/

    Lord Nicholas Stern receives Honorary Doctorate of the TU Berlin

    Award ceremony was held on November 4th at the TU Berlin on the occasion of the first “Climate Lecture”. “October 21, 2009, the Academic Senate of the TU Berlin resolved to bestow the title of Honorary Doctorate on Professor Lord Nicholas Herbert Stern of Brentford.”

    These lectures are organised in cooperation with Vattenfall Europe AG (wind turbines) and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. (Schellnhuber, Edenhofer, Rahmstorf and many more)

    This took place a month before COP 16 in Copenhagen.

    TU President Prof. Dr. Kurt Kutzler said: “Lord Stern’s innovative work and his successes in bringing climate change and related economics issues to the international agenda are driving further research and scientific expertise.

    He is now a scientist, Kutzler again: “In his role as a scientist, Lord Stern has earned broad international recognition, particularly in the fields of growth and development theory, government policy, and the economics of climate change. His exceptional standing as a scientist is demonstrated in the numerous important books he has published, in addition to more than 100 expert articles.”

    Prof. Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer (Redistributing Wealth, WUWT, Nov 18th), presented the address at the ceremony.

    According to Edenhofer, “As a brilliant economist Nicholas Stern has not only made significant contributions to our understanding of climate change from an economics point of view, but to international climate policies as well. He has convincingly shown that investments in climate protection make good economic sense.”

    According to Stern: “Ottmar Edenhofer is an internationally outstanding scientist in the economics of climate change. His expertise, experience, wisdom and judgement are of great value for the IPCC and especially Working Group 3 “Mitigation of Climate Change”.

    All pals together.

  80. It’s over Stern. You got that? IT”S OVER!
    You ain’t getting that New World Order thing you have been working for your entire life.
    You got that Lord Stern?
    IT’S OVER! YOU LOST!

  81. Enneagram says: “BTW, it seems that in their effort for making Green airplanes they have exaggerated and made them from a wafered material: Aluminum-Carbon Fiber-Aluminum, in this order, which is : Conductor-dielectric-conductor = A flying condenser, ready to blow up… if there is some charge around.”

    Graphite (carbon fiber) is more conductive than Germanium or Silicon. Your condenser wouldn’t store energy. Also, it would be easy to ground the inner and outer layers. If the structure is riveted, you wouldn’t even need to add grounding straps.

  82. Can’t imagine ANYONE in their right mind choosing Brentford as the seat for their lordship – with apologies to the good citizens of that borough, its a fairly uninspiring West London suburb, a mixture of residential roads and carpet warehouses…
    Anyway – his Lordship is clearly off his trolley, and if this sort of outburst is the ‘official’ line, it only goes to prove that UK government ministers have a long way to go before they grasp reality…

  83. I’m sorry US readers, but we in the UK didn’t get the chance to elect this pompous oaf who claims to represent us. We need a revolution to purge these stupid and insufferable people.

  84. We Brits have a word for people like ‘Lord’ Stern who spout such nonsense.

    The work is “plonker”.”

    Actually we in the UK have a much better one. Rhymes with ‘anchor’.

    Just like the apparent US Boycott of French goods in the wake of the Gulf war, you remember – when the French actually INCREASED exports to the US, this one means nothing to most people.

    Stern is an idiot.

    Who will be ignored.

  85. sagi says:
    November 19, 2010 at 10:05 am

    “Inbreeding within this class has apparently taken its toll.”

    Not much class here, he has only been a Lord for 3 years, got the prize from Gordon Brown for the Stern Review. He will never face an election but gets to vote on legislation. Our upper chamber is now mostly political appointees and failed MP’s.

    The latest load of Lords includes the Tory Party treasurer who has given £2m to the party in the last few years. Three main parties in the UK are the same, all dyed green. And they tell us we live in a democracy.

  86. Lord Stern sounds more like Howard Stern.

    It’s only fitting the group giving the Greens so much strife is called The Tea Party.
    History repeats itself. No taxation without representation.

    Our muskets are much better now and we have more of them just like before.

  87. I seem to recall an iconic, or perhaps fictitious, newspaper headline:

    FOG IN (ENGLISH) CHANNEL: CONTINENT ISOLATED

    But our glorious leaders never learn.

  88. Looks like King George III was prescient:
    “I can never suppose this country so far lost to all ideas of self-importance as to be willing to grant America independence; if that could ever be adopted I shall despair of this country being ever preserved from a state of inferiority and consequently falling into a very low class among the European States. “

  89. Lord Stern is (forgive the profanity) a Dickhead. In our last election in the UK we traded a lot of neutered europhile Socialists for a bunch of Green tinted Liberal and Tory-lite europhiles. Brussels and the IPCC call the shots and all our MPs/Lords have to go along with whatever they say having given away almost all of our legislative and some of our judicial powers already. Poll after poll shows that the majority of English men and women want out of the failed European Union, mainly because we were never asked if we wanted to be in it in the first place. We were sold and voted for a ‘common market’ back in 1973, a trading union and nothing more. What we got is an an unwieldy, crooked, money wasting, lopsided federation of mostly Socialist governments and the biggest, most corrupt bureaucracy in the western hemisphere.

    nb: A Tory is a bit like a Republican or at least they used to be, these days in the UK it’s hard to tell one party from another when it comes to climate change and the E.U.S.S.R.

  90. “In ten years it will be emitting even more and exporting even more goods. Will Lord Stern suggest barring the importation of Chinese goods then ?”

    He will not. Because his goal is not to limit the CO2 emissions but to establish socialism and “global governance” in the Western word. For that goal to be achieved, ‘global warming’ aka “climate change-climate disruption’ nonsense is as good as any other excuse (‘economic injustice’, ‘poverty’, Ozone hole, invasion of Martians, whatever).

  91. There simply aren’t enough [snip]s in the known universe to cover everything I want to say about that idiot. Unfortunately for me, I live in the UK.

  92. Hey, Guys. Please don’t blame England because of what this raving lunatic has said. Most of us are completely on your side. He shames us.

  93. Smokey says:
    November 19, 2010 at 10:51 am

    Lord Stern is a foot soldier in the Soros army
    But, sincerely, I do not understand why a man with so many billions want to rule the world?
    To have more money?…perhaps he will buy immortality? I don’t get it. He is meddling in many countries with his “Open Society” thing. All we want human beings is having the right to live and die, to be rich or be poor (this is a right too!). Can anyone of you, much more educated and intelligent than me explain to me such a behavior?
    Anyway, no one has the right to interfere in other peoples’ lives unless they voluntarily accept it: That’s the fair play, anything else is conspiracy.

  94. For you Brits … What is the difference between Lord Stern and a common South American form of flora?

    One is Pampas Grass, the other is a …

  95. He’s just another in a long line of “The wisest fool in Christendom”. Starting with James VI we have had a fair number over the years. Treat him with the contempt he deserves.

  96. In view of Stern’s ideological fervour was he really the right person to prepare an unbiased report ?

  97. Lord Stern is listed as an advisor to IDEAcarbon whoe website advertises.

    “IDEAcarbon is an independent and professional provider of ratings, research and strategic advice on carbon finance. Our services are designed to provide leading financial institutions, corporations, governments, traders and developers with unbiased intelligence and analysis of the factors that affect the pricing of carbon assets.

    The IDEAcarbon team are leading experts in the carbon and energy markets. We combine policy and carbon market analysis with proprietary tools for the analysis of carbon project credit risk. Our techniques assist our clients to manage and mitigate risk in today’s uncertain global carbon markets.”

    He brings to the Climate change debate a similar independent contributuon as does Pachauri.

  98. Sometimes, just sometimes (OK well rather a lot this last year) it is extremely embarrassing having to admit you’re British – I do apologise for my countrymen – from the CRU non-scientists to the ludicrous bureaucrats in the various whitewashing committees to the idiotic so-called economists like Lord Stern. If with a wave of the wand I could get them off the tax-payer funded payroll I would dearly love to do so, in fact I’d go further and try them all for treason, they certainly don’t have the best interests of the UK at heart.

  99. Good! Let’s retaliate by blocking their imports, what’ll happen is that those goods will start being made here again lowering our unemployment.

  100. Stern is one of the idiots the UK has to thank for the financial mess it is in at the moment. Ignore him, we do.
    Oh and he isn’t going to be critical of the Chinese, he’s being paid too much by them via the China Investment Corporation.

  101. So the Lord Monckton’s conspiracy theory seems quite justified!

    This statement by Lord Stern confirms CAGW is not only a scam but also part of a UN plot to create World Government.

    I expect the great USA will chuck Lord Stern into Boston Harbor – if he dares to visit – just like they did with the tea.

  102. Dear Lord Stern,

    The English language is broad and expressive, and while you islanders may in fact have the upper hand in the flowery use of the tongue, we do have a few expressions, many of which fully rise to the American reputation for coarseness in describing acts of fornication or the evacuation of the bowels, that could serve to respond to your absurd nattering at this time.

    Sincerely,

    Brother Jonathan.

  103. I don’t care what the rest or you say, I have always appreciated the British folks sense of humor.

  104. For the last 35 years, the USA has produced more GDP than anyone else using the least amount of energy in the process, and instituting the EPA and reducing coal-fired sulfur emissions 50% along the way. The USA is without peer when it comes to fuel efficiency.

    Lord Stern: get off your unknowledgeable high horse and give the credit due the USA!

  105. The sane world should turn the concept on it’s head and refuse trade with any country the promotes AGW, due to the fact that they are price gouging and extorting money in a fraudulent manner.

  106. Oldjim,

    “He was given the task of writing the “Stern Report” by the socialist lot we kicked out at the last election.”

    And the new lot now in power are different how, exactly?

  107. HE is an idiot! The world economy depends on the USA to buy the products they produce and any more taxes that have already been added since obama are just going to add to the problem. IMO he needs to get out in the street and see how the havenots live and make do with the ways things are going THE UK are going to have a hard time dealing with these new money schemes like we are.

  108. “woodNfish says:
    November 19, 2010 at 9:34 am

    I suppose this Stern moron doesn’t know that we can deny access to our markets for countries that want to play that game. We are not only the largest exporter in the world. We are also the largest importer.”
    USA may be the largest importer, but only No. 3 as exporter after China and Germany.

  109. In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said that nations that were taking strong action on emissions could start imposing restrictions on “dirty” US exports by 2020.

    By 2020 Lord Stern of Brentford could be fishing for driftwood under the Kew bridge to keep himself warm.

  110. As the science does not support the extreme AGW position, (a doubling of CO2 will result in less than 1C degree warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes and with effects of the warming to be mostly beneficial) there is no global warming problem to solve.

    There is a fixed amount of public money to address real problems and one of the real public problems is massive government debit which will lead to a currency collapse or very high inflation. (Curiously the same out come occurs over and over again.)

    The AWG problem is a crisis. The crisis is the leaches of this world are trying to take advantage of well meaning people.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/pachauri-nose-in-honey-jar.html

    “With a distinguished Indian member, by the name of Dr R K Pachauri, already on the Chicago External Advisory Board, it comes as no surprise to learn that the new chairman of this founder member group was to be Pachauri.

    To assist him in the development of this enterprise, there was also created a Technical Design Committee, attracting a number of India’s “leading industrial companies” and “think-tanks” who had “committed” to be part of the committee. And, amongst those were Tata Motors, Tata Chemicals and Tata Power, as well as TERI India, of which Dr Pachauri just happens to be Director-General.

    Interestingly, the Chairman of the entire Climate Exchange PLC group, Dr Richard L Sandor, is a member of the TERI School of Management Advisory Committee in India.

    All this puts Pachauri, with his institute, as a direct player in the creation of a lucrative carbon trading market in India, alongside direct evidence that he was using his position as chairman of the IPCC to advocate a “definite agreement on placing a price on carbon” at the Copenhagen COP15 Summit.

    Acting with a coterie of other UN officials, when it comes to conflicts of interest, they do not come any stronger.”

  111. Bullying won’t win any friends to his side. He talks big for a country that almost ran out of heating fuel last year when the whole British isle was covered with ice and snow.
    He must have a lot of money invested in the failing green economy.

  112. Where are all of the comments?

    [Reply: There is only one moderator on duty, and his wife just got out of the hospital after a knee replacement. Please be patient. Trying to hold down the fort here and also be a nurse. ~dbs]

  113. Lord Stern’s words effectively come down to, “If you Americans don’t do as I tell you I’m going to groin you in the knee then poke you in the finger with my eye!”
    He is an irrelevant ex-government advisor whose economic reports have been very widely criticised. Ignore him.

  114. steveta_uk says:
    November 19, 2010 at 9:07 am
    “We Brits have a word for people like ‘Lord’ Stern who spout such nonsense.
    The word is “plonker”.

    We also have other words for people like him. Unfortunately I’d be snipped…

  115. Like a crusading rebellious adolescent, he needs to be ignored. But you have to blame those in charge for not doing so.

    If a parent was to parade such a teenager through society, and implore them to listen to his ‘message’, they would soon find themselves the object of worried glances. But this is exactly what is happening in the case of Stern. Journalists whose job it is to investigate truth and expose scams should have put down this adolescents ravings for the nonsense it clearly is. Not only have they not done so, but they have lauded this man, treating every utterance with the reverence normally afforded to histories greatest. The adolescent, mistaking the fawning accolades of a discredited media as confirmation of his own greatness, moves from one outrage to another.

    Where is the mainstream journalist – just one – who will raise his or her pen in righteous indignation and spell out what is obvious to everybody with half a faculty? That this man is mad. Has been driven mad by all of you. All of you fawning journalists for fawning over his nonsense. Driven mad by the empty salutations of UN bodies, of politicans and by the enoblement of the previous government.

    Or shall this petulant adolescent be allowed to run and run until he becomes a danger to himself and all the rest of us?

  116. Reminds me of “the Mouse that roared” with Peter Sellars. Trouble is the gentleman seems to be operating in a parallel universe.

    He does not speak for all Brits – just the numpties.

  117. Caleb says:
    November 19, 2010 at 9:50 am
    ‘This sounds like the bluster of a desperate man.’

    I think this is entirely the point. He and his cohorts at the Grantham Institute, Bob Ward’s outfit, know that the jig is up. It’s just final desperation as they see their hopes of power and control start to spiral down the bog. Nobody with any remaining grasp on reality could imagine that the UK (where I am, totally buggered as we are, who can’t even afford to put planes on our one aircraft carrier, which we time-share with the French), could seriously pose any threat to the US. But these folk are used to behaving like bullies, especially to people who ‘don’t understand’ or who simply stick up two fingers to their cant and claptrap. There’s a good line in ‘Julius Caesar': “Defiance, traitors, hurl we in your teeth’. That’s how I feel about these deluded nutters.
    @Doug (November 19, 2010 at 10:31 am } – may I respectfully correct a typo? Birk, properly, should be Berk, an abbreviation of the Cockney Rhyming Slang expression ‘Berkshire Hunt’. Very apt Doug, very apt, I agree.

  118. Weird, wouldn’t a Lord, within the Euro nation, know that it is highly illegal to threaten anyone with anything, especially in an official capacity and especially when it comes to the protection of the Euro nations total wealth and income?

    And oh yeah it is, if memory serves, using the same laws the idiot greenie hobnob hippie cultists wanted once upon a time, like less then 20 years ago.

  119. The United States will be banned from selling goods to many countries if it continues to shirk its promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to the world’s leading climate change economist.

    This is utter bunk.

    World Bank Funds Massive Coal-Fired Power Plant in South Africa

    The World Bank voted last week to approve a $3.75 billion loan to South Africa’s public utility Eskom, the bulk of which would finance construction of what will be the world’s seventh-largest coal plant. The U.S. abstained from the vote.

    “Giving the go-ahead to the Medupi coal plant, which will release massive amounts of greenhouse gases for decades, without a clear South African plan to level off and then decrease emissions amounts to a step backward when the world is moving forward to a clean energy future,” said Peter Goldmark, director of Environmental Defense Fund’s climate and air program.

    http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/20119

  120. With our trade deficit and the bs exchange rates prevailing, wouldn’t some of these countries refusing to trade with us cause a boom in our economy?

  121. JEM says:
    November 19, 2010 at 11:36 am

    “Brother Jonathan.”

    ###

    Your signature is the title of a book I read decades ago.
    ???

  122. If every country had to stand alone and support itself, the US would be the biggest winner. We import nearly everything now, to the detriment of our manufacturing base.

    Such a situation would cause the greatest industrial boom ever seen in this country.

    The Cabal of Climate Thieves are becoming desperate. With the Obama Presidency, they thought they finally had the keys to the kingdom. Now Americans (and the GOP) have gone and spoiled the plan. Their desperation is showing badly.

  123. Let them have it, these arm twisting bunch of crackpot brags.

    Don’t send a single US made product to Europe, ban all the use of US patents, withdraw all American companies, close US Air Space for European aircraft and withdraw all US forces.
    And the next time these EU hacks need to be liberated, screw them all.

    Arrogant bastards.

    What is this? the weekly ten minute hate?

    One tosspot has been says something stupid and suddenly the whole of Europe gets it in the neck?

    Get a grip.

  124. Jeremy
    November 19, 2010 at 11:36 am

    I expect the great USA will chuck Lord Stern into Boston Harbor – if he dares to visit – just like they did with the tea.
    #

    Not a good idea … would pollute the water, but we have other time honored traditions :)

  125. Man, if we had a commander-in-chief with a pair in charge these days, he’d have some choice retorts for this clown! But alas, we don’t. We’ll probably send him a fruit basket with an apology and a promise to do better.

  126. And so the plan to cause the collapse of the economies of the developed world (starting with every Liberal’s favourite hate-target, the USA) rolls on.

    Not just evil; STUPID. When will Liberals wake up to the idiocy that is being perpetrated in the name of this bullsh*t anti-human agenda? It is part of the human condition to create, invent, TRADE and aspire to increased wealth. These self-loathing A holes will not be satisfied until the West is ruined, shackled by their fascist laws and tariffs, and China steps in to become the new USA (albeit a despotic one).

  127. Economist, is he!
    An economist can best be described as someone who drives a car at seventy miles an hour and steers by looking through the rear window.
    He couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery.

  128. It looks to me like imports are being positioned to become a revenue source for Governments far larger than current import duties make it – emissions related revenue can be raised at the consumption end that would go into our Government’s pockets rather than Chinese ones.

    The problem with that is we know what politicians are like. The revenue raised from emissions related taxes will be in addition to all other tax revenues rather than instead of some. Regardless of my scepticism over the science I personally wouldn’t be that bothered about emissions related taxes *if other taxes such as income tax were reduced to compensate*. But they aren’t. These are never neutral measures when it comes to the cost that Government inflicts upon us.

    When Governments are prepared to show *they* are willing to forgo the plump revenue stream they are salivating over I might believe they sincerely want to encourage cleaner and more efficient lifestyles.

  129. “Peter Foster: Canada dodges carbon suicide”

    “Harper right to kill ‘irresponsible’ bill that would have erased legions of jobs”

    “Mr. Harper has always clearly grasped — apparently unlike the majority of his international counterparts — that the greatest threat facing humanity is not climate change, but climate-change policy. Bill C-311 was a perfect example. Opposition parties, in thrall to radical green groups or sheer hypocrisy, were supporting a piece of draconian legislation that would not have had one raindrop’s worth of perceptible effect on the global climate. Nor would it have in any way influenced the way other countries are attempting to writhe away from this issue.”

    “The bottom line is that the Conservatives have worked consistently to minimize the damage to the Canadian economy from the all-but-collapsed climate-change juggernaut, and have succeeded admirably. Public concern has — despite flagrantly rigged opinion polls — subsided in the wake both of more immediate economic issues and the very valid doubts over “the science” raised by Climategate and Glaciergate, and by the review of the IPCC undertaken by the InterAcademy Council — the representative body of national science academies. That review acknowledged that the whole IPCC process needs to be reformed.

    No matter what the state of the science, however, anybody who supports unilateral action such as Bill C-311 could only be an economic masochist or a political numbskull. To reiterate: the prospect of international agreement to slash emissions has collapsed; any measures to hobble Canada unilaterally would thus be both economically suicidal and climatologically pointless.

    Mr. Harper is to be congratulated. The measure of his success will be the volume of “dinosaur” or “fossil” awards given to Canada at Cancun. Canadian representatives should accept them with pride.”

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/11/18/peter-foster-canada-dodges-carbon-suicide/

  130. tallbloke says:
    November 19, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    What is this? the weekly ten minute hate?
    =======================================================

    Well, you know its just vent. Some of us are given to a knee jerk reaction from time to time, but, we’re tied to our cousins across the pond in more ways than just trade. Britannia and her offspring will always be tied to each other.

    Speaking of, has there been any word from N.Z. re. the miners?

  131. Lots of bloviating. Corn Wheat and Cotton, Corn Wheat and Cotton, please send Corn Wheat and Cotton. We did it before and we can do it again.

  132. The decision to boycott US goods would be taken by the EU, the British “government” have a very small voice in the matter. Smaller voice than the Germans who export BMWs to the US. It just shows how out of touch with reality this feeble man is. His words are not worth reporting.

    Here in the UK i no longer listen to the news, they are so out of touch it is better, and more productive to the intellect, to turn over to Radio three where they play recording of concerts..

  133. Enneagram says @ 11:17 am:

    “But, sincerely, I do not understand why a man with so many billions want to rule the world? To have more money?…perhaps he will buy immortality? I don’t get it. He is meddling in many countries with his “Open Society” thing… Can anyone… explain to me such a behavior?”

    Money doesn’t explain all human behavior. There is also status, which is hard-wired into us by evolution. In a prehistoric tribe, status easily meant the difference between survival and starvation. The king’s family rarely starved.

    From a report in The Economist about a psychology experiment, here is an example of how social status works: when people were asked in a study whether they would rather earn $100,000 a year, when everyone they knew was earning $50,000 a year, or whether they would rather earn $150,000 a year, when everyone else they knew was earning $200,000 a year, the answer invariably given was that they would prefer to earn the lower amount; as long as they earned more than other people did, they were happier. Higher social status is more important than more dollars.

    Another example of status: during the Roman civil war, when Caesar’s army was marching in the Alps they came upon an extremely destitute, dirt-poor village. One of Caesar’s lieutenants jokingly asked him how he would like to be the head man of that no-account village. Caesar replied: “Better head man here than second man in Rome.” Status is deeply ingrained. It goes back to Cain and Abel, and it trumps money.

    The world is fast becoming richer. Forbes magazine this week listed the top ten Indian billionaires. Their wealth totaled several hundred billion dollars, and they are not all of India’s billionaires. Then there is China, and the rest of the developing world.

    George Soros is much less rich than many Indians and Chinese. The more billionaires in the world, the lower George’s status. America has a lot of billionaires, so Soros is nothing special in that regard. Soros is now moving to China, where his wealth will allow him to live in opulence among a billion people – where most cannot even afford a car [and where he will be far beyond the reach of France, where he is a convicted criminal].

    Then there is the status that comes from totalitarian governments, which have always coddled rich, friendly capitalists. For example, the Soviet Union’s bowing and scraping before Armand Hammer, who could travel at will throughout Russia, and where the red carpet was always rolled out for him.

    Soros, like other rich men, craves the status conferred by his green entourage. There are no more intense haters than eco-greens; who wants to be hated and chastised, when with the right eco-words and some money spread around, they can buy adulation and fawning People magazine articles instead?

    Soros knows he was given a gift for financial acumen. But deep down he is still the “Judas goat” who herded his fellow jews into railroad cars for the Nazis, promising them they were going to Palestine. The went East, instead. During an interview Soros was given the opportunity to apologize for leading his countrymen and women to slaughter. He refused. He has always wanted to be on the side of totalitarians. To Soros, that confers the ultimate status.

    The common people mean nothing to him; they are simply tools, a means to an end. And many of them are willing tools. Some of the masses liquidated by Stalin went out happily, knowing they were to be shot. They believed their deaths would advance international socialism. Martyrs die in order to be right. And as Leo Tolstoy explains:

    I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

    Gavin Schmidt, Lord Stern, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and most of their ilk know that CAGW is a scam. Their emails show that they know the real world data directly contradicts their models.

    But by now they own their lie. They have told it too often. And the status they enjoy is so fantastic that they are hooked, knowing that if they had been born forty years earlier, they would be unknown nerds, hoping no one took their seat in the faculty lounge while they went out for a smoke, and desperately wishing they were on the football team instead of being ordinary scientists.

  134. They reflect the feeling in many countries
    =====================================
    on one side you have the vast majority of countries that get paid
    on the other, you have a small minority of countries that have to pay

    Let’s vote!

  135. Imbecile. Who needs these Globalists and their socialist agendas. Up yours IMF, UN, IPCC, WHO. We don’t care for you’re Socialist agendas which dictate to free countries and strip away their sovereign rights.

  136. When I posted this to Tips & Notes for Anthony yesterday, the aspect that really caught my eye was that he’s threatening us – ten years in the future!!! How reasonable is that?

    The other main thoughts I’d had was that we’ll see if this is even an issue by then or if AGW has gone the way of the Dodo’s…. the latter would be a he who laughs last situation. Plus, a liberal green friend of mine has, several times in the past, said that WE (the USA) ought to do exactly this to other countries when we implement either cap & trade or carbon taxes.

    All of this, of course, makes me think of how protectionist trade wars were integral in causing the Great Depression.

  137. I wrote about Stern on blackswhitewash.com earlier in the year.

    He has a stake in a carbon trading company, and is closely tied to the grantham institute.

    He is basically the worst sort of advocate, he is in it for the money.

  138. Who would you want on your side when the chips are down. the french, indians Chinese, germans italians, and all south americans? Or the english, australians, new zealanders and canadians. It pays to know who your friends really are

  139. a jones says: “It is pure codswallop because the WTO regime does not allow for such a thing

    Rats! I was hoping that Australia could join in and be banned too, it could be fun.

    Re-think : That’s nonsense, of course. Australian exports were banned by the UK back in 1973.

    So, is it : Hi USA, welcome to the club…

  140. Obviously, I’m talking about governments

    Here, in the third world. We know.

    The best trade of the world. It is losing a war to the United States of America. Any war.

    Coincidences….????????

  141. “The United States will be banned from selling goods”
    So who will do the banning , Stern ? and who are you to speak on behalf of any Govt.?
    These idiots can see that Cancun is going to be worse than Copenhagen so desperation has met the brick wall.
    ( PS. I hope he had heaps invested in the Chicago Carbon exchange that has gone down the tube)

  142. RichieP says: November 19, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    @Doug (November 19, 2010 at 10:31 am } – may I respectfully correct a typo? Birk, properly, should be Berk, an abbreviation of the Cockney Rhyming Slang expression ‘Berkshire Hunt’. Very apt Doug, very apt, I agree.
    ——————————————————————————-
    RichieP re Berk. Thanks. Knew it was slang – use it frequently verbally – but don’t remember seeing it written.

    Douglas

  143. Stern does not represent Britain, any more than his Australian equivalent represents our country. He’s not even a good economist if he doesn’t see that following the strict AGW recommendations would mean lowering our standards of living to mediaeval levels.

  144. Robinson says: Is Stern an economist?

    No, he is not an economist, a scientist, or even an environmentalist. He is actually an investment banker who dreamed up the whole scheme to regulate carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.

    By the way, he also tried this “bullying” stunt in China, demanding they impose CO2 regulations or be shut out of exports to the EU, so it’s somewhat amusing to see him say how much the Far East has progressed in this area.

  145. Stern continues to amaze me. Not only is the emperor naked, he’s hanging in the sky with no visible means of support.

  146. Snake oil salesman Stern is now angrily threatening us with witchcraft because no one is buying his snake oil. If he cannot send civilization back to the stone age by scaring people into limiting their CO2 then he’ll just have to try to do it by shackling trade with a wave of his magic wand.

    If someone told you that you will die unless you take a vaccine for a disease that had no proof of existence but this vaccine had a guaranteed side effect of causing permanent blindness – would you take it? It’s as though Stern is asserting that we should accept blindness as our only hope for survival. Similarly, what he is demanding that we accept, is a very dark looking future indeed – except for arrogant scare mongering elitists like himself of course..

  147. Who is buying a Brittain car or truck today?
    No one, because there are no.
    Lord Stern reminds me of the time when fog covered the channel and someone said:
    Europe is isolated.
    Today it seems the whole world is isolated.
    Pity us!

  148. British blackmail in the morning, ahhh how rejuvenating with the morning coffee.

    The redcoats are coming, again . . . . didn’t they learn the first time?

    John

  149. Hahahahahaha….fall off chair Hahahahahaha……roll on floor Hahahahahaha……clutch sides……Hahahahahahaha.
    God I love upon the pommy aristocracy, the world would indeed be a very boring place without them.

  150. Come to think of it…I’m really going to miss all those British goods – as much as my dad missed them back in WW2. /sarc

  151. Is it possible that the US administration is not yet quaking in its boots at this unsubtle manoeuvere? And we Brits used to be good at the velvet glove concealing an iron fist.

    This has no glove, but no plausible fist either. 98% of UK residents have never heard of Stern. Lets keep it that way.

  152. The Stern “Boycott USA” rant could piss off various groups in the USA enough to independently boycott UK products. I can imagine various USA radio shock jocks calling for Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s holiday boycotts of UK beer, etc just to send a message back to Lord Stern.

  153. Man o man. Stern just energized the Tea Party big time. I don’t think American liberals needed that at this time. What a blunder by Stern. Shot the whole US envirnmental movement and their liberal supporters in the foot.

    John

  154. Ugh. I suspect LSE wins government contracts. To think my taxes probably contribute to enabling this moron spout his bile. Makes me want to puke.

    I wish I could choose to boycott Stern from getting another penny of my taxes. Only I just remembered, I don’t get that choice.

  155. @ Smokey (November 19, 2010 at 1:01 pm):

    Thank you for a very insightful comment, I enjoyed reading it very much.

  156. STEPHEN PARKERuk says: “Who would you want on your side when the chips are down. the french, indians Chinese, germans italians, and all south americans? Or the english, australians, new zealanders and canadians. It pays to know who your friends really are

    Hold on a minute. The UK didn’t just ban exports from Australia in 1973. They banned exports from New Zealand and Canada too. So it’s the French, Indians, Chinese, Germans, Italians, all South Americans, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians (and a fair bit of Africa) versus the English. There! that levels it up a bit.

  157. I am somewhat tired of seeing the Brits on this board apologize for this unelected gasbag or any other politician over there. It might be nicer to watch you take real action.

    I think you Brits feel a sense of shame where you should really simply divorce yourself from the arrogant power seekers. Americans (forgive the broad brush) tend more to look at politicians with complete disdain, even those we choose to vote for. As a result, I would never apologize for the behavior of the power/fame seekers in Washington any more than I would do so for the nearly identical people of “Jersey Shore”. I wouldn’t apologize because I know they’re at least partially insane, only the insane want fame and/or power over others. In short, I think you guys should stop calling your politicians “lords”… there’s too much implied respect in the title.

  158. Sounds like a great idea. First let’s remove all US military forces and aid for Europe. Then we’ll stop selling those pesky, filthy CPUs manufactured by Intel and AMD. Of course we’ll have to stop buying drugs produced by British concerns and stop selling the ones made in the USA. That ought to teach us a lesson!

  159. Lord Stern started out as plain ole Nicholas Stern, became a civil servant and after living at the taxpayers’ expense for a fair while was rewarded with a knighthood, Sir Nicholas Stern (a form of ‘family credit’ perhaps?). Then PM Brown (Gordy) needed a some stooge to tell everyone how dreadful AGW was and why we should be taxed to save the world. He asked a whole series of economists, but as they were told what answer they had to give, to their credit they turned the task down. Step up our hero Sir Nick! “Delighted to oblige PM. What about a peerage PM?” “Fine” says Gordy. “Arise Lord Stern!” says HM QE, “Didn’t I do this to you not long ago? – Oh Yes, that was a knighthood.” …. sigh.

  160. Great idea! Let’s start with Intel microprocessors, Microsoft software, all Apple products, and any drugs produced by American companies, especially any newly-developed ones.

  161. “Yeah, and we would have gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for those pesky bloggers.”

    Whose quote was that?

  162. I’ve long suspected that most economists are cretins pretending their models are scientific. Lord Stern proves it.

  163. “The United States will be banned from selling goods”
    ========================================
    Is foreign aid considered a “goods”?
    Paying the bill for the UN, is that a “goods”?
    How about bail out money for foreign countries and
    foreign banks?
    How about military protection? is that a “goods”?

    I say fine, let’s cut them off………

  164. @Smokey

    Very nice easy explanation, and I would like to add what I think is the biggest problem in the psychology department with today’s hobnob hippies and that is they substitute riches in money, fortunes, and/or fame for being more likable which they in turn substitute for being right.

    Most people today have met the odd job that throw around money like crazy, seemingly for no good reason but for thinking it is the right thing to do to be liked and most likely therefor be right. Crazy climatic–suffering from low self-esteem– professors and researchers aren’t any different, they just go above and beyond and over board if they think it will render them some more friends and fans or what ever that think they are totally right. (Behavior wise it kind of funny that it is mostly young people who believe that “older” people don’t behave and act as “young” people. Personally I believe this is why the crazy greenie hippie cultist always gets such a large crowd of “dumb ass” young people.)

  165. James Sexton says:
    November 19, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    tallbloke says:
    November 19, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    What is this? the weekly ten minute hate?
    =======================================================

    Well, you know its just vent. Some of us are given to a knee jerk reaction from time to time, but, we’re tied to our cousins across the pond in more ways than just trade. Britannia and her offspring will always be tied to each other.

    Good to hear. I greatly value my U.S. cousins clarity and clear speaking on issues of freedom. We ordinary Brits appreciate the backup you ordinary Yanks have given freely in the past, whatever posturing nonsense our spurious leaders have said.

    If I could get into the upper house debating chamber and open a window, I’d cheerfully toss Lord Stern through it into the river Thames.

  166. John Whitman says:
    November 19, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    British blackmail in the morning, ahhh how rejuvenating with the morning coffee.

    The redcoats are coming, again . . . . didn’t they learn the first time?

    John

    Careful now, we Canucks might just stand with the British you know (Should we change governments during an election where we suffer a complete loss of sanity). Within 24 hours of a threat being detected we can put a fully armed Argus aircraft into the air — with a rifleman at every portal. Beware!

    Now pardon me while I finish rolling on the floor laughing at this threat from the Brits.

  167. Quite disappointed at the rather unpleasant Brit bashing (and Euro sometimes too) it does tend to show a certain nationality in a poor light. Would it not be a better idea to target the daft ideas of Stern and not his accidental location of birth?

    [Good suggestion. ~dbs, mod.]

  168. Today’s installment of the Cancun Week special is now available at

    http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/

    It is the third translation of selected portions of the Chinese book “Low Carbon Plot” and deals with the true national self-interest behind climate politics and finance.

    Pointman

  169. John Whitman says:
    November 19, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    “Man o man. Stern just energized the Tea Party big time. I don’t think American liberals needed that at this time. What a blunder by Stern. Shot the whole US envirnmental movement and their liberal supporters in the foot.”

    Indeed. This is perfect!

    Heck of a job Sternie.

  170. I wonder if he would rather we spent our money in china after all he is a member of the China Investment Corporation which has invested in GCL-Poly a supplier to the solar industry.
    Also the AES coroperation, which has a diverse portfolio of thermal and renewable fuel sources, we provide affordable and sustainable energy in 29 countries. Our workforce of 27,000 people is committed to operational excellence and meeting the world’s changing power need
    in fact they seem to be big into the energy market which if its green or “dirty” is getting more expensive by the day.

    Infact I think Stern will become very rich from the green religion if he has his way!

  171. A Carbon scammer suggesting that carbon trading should be mandatory. Colour me shocked.

    I can see the headlines now ..”Carbon scammer loses underpants as Mexican talks fail”.

    Even with the current state of the US economy, may I suggest that it should be a cold day in hell before you start taking economic advice or threats from the Domino States of Europe.

  172. tallbloke says:
    November 19, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    James Sexton says:
    November 19, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    tallbloke says:
    November 19, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    What is this? the weekly ten minute hate?
    =======================================================

    Well, you know its just vent. Some of us are given to a knee jerk reaction from time to time, but, we’re tied to our cousins across the pond in more ways than just trade. Britannia and her offspring will always be tied to each other.

    ==================================================

    Although my direct ancestors came to the New World in 1632 from England, I feel no loyalty to the Crown or any of the so-called “Nobles”. In fact, several of my ancestors put holes in their armies for good reason. There was a little thing called the American Revolution, you know.

  173. Is Stern the guy who predicted that the population of humans will be reduced to a few breeding pairs in the Antarctic. It this is the case, then US exports won’t be an issue as the breeding pairs will have no need for products from a country that does not exist.

  174. Kate says:
    November 19, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    “Robinson says: Is Stern an economist?

    No, he is not an economist, a scientist, or even an environmentalist. He is actually an investment banker who dreamed up the whole scheme to regulate carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.”

    According to this article he’s “the world’s leading climate change economist.”

    That more or less explains everything, doesn’t it?

    I wonder who the world’s leading unicorn ranching economist is?

  175. Lordy-Gawdy Stern: All your trades are belong to us.

    Hmmm, when was the last time an English aristo told the Americans to stuff it?

  176. Al Gored
    November 19, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    I wonder who the world’s leading unicorn ranching economist is?

    ###

    That would be Gregg Gutfeld.

  177. I also have some Stern-like ideas.

    The British parliament repeals the North America Act, so America is once again a colony.

    Then the Brits send a gunboat to enforce re-colonisation.

    Sounds like a Stern proposal to me.

  178. Robert Morris says:
    November 19, 2010 at 9:14 am
    Why is it that so many clever men give every indication of being complete idiots?

    Money, power and prestige.

    References:
    Al Bore, Mickey Mouse Mann, James Hotsun, Paul delete Jones.

  179. Al Gored,

    They did the same thing with my posts, snipping the peer reviewed papers and charts that I provided.

    It’s always the same with the alarmist blogs. They never play fair; they censor, snip and delete, and in this case it’s a blog run by an 18-year old indoctrinated know-it-all.

    Best to give them no more traffic. If they want a debate they can come here, where we don’t put up with those shenanigans. Everyone gets to say their piece without a meddling teenager interfering.

  180. Here is another ‘Berk’ – a mate of Stern no doubt.
    Or is it all part of a ‘cunning plan’ m’lord’ . Remove the sovreignty create vassel states force them to boycott US goods—–. With a bit of luck the whole pack of cards will come tumbling down.
    ——————————————————————————

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/8146842/IMF-chief-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-urges-leaders-to-cede-more-sovereignty-to-EU.html

  181. R. de Haan says: November 19, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Lord Stern Country, wants the same for the USA?

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/212160/Winter-deaths-to-soar-as-5-million-homes-struggle-to-pay-fuel-bills

    It’s worse than you thought

    Also interesting that the UK “excess winter death” figures are still not yet out for last winter. Just an oversight I’m sure.

    should be Berk, an abbreviation of the Cockney Rhyming Slang expression ‘Berkshire Hunt’. Very apt Doug, very apt, I agree.

    Him being something of a Merchant Banker too.

  182. DesertYote – ‘Brother Jonathan’ was a common 19th-century British nickname for the US, commonly found in the literature and press of the era.

  183. Lord Stern can see into the future and firmly believes in AGW.

    Unfortunately as one of the world’s leading economists he did not predict the worldwide financial collapse and recession, and if he was someone we could believe in, I just thought he might have mentioned it.

    Credibility?

  184. Sorry but posts like Dave Springer’s should have no place on a site like this. Not funny, not necessary and deeply hurtful to Brits who lost family in WW2.

    REPLY: I’ve been away from moderating all day, and while his comment was directed at Stern, it was a bit over the top since it can be construed broadly, and was 100% rant, so I’ve snipped it – Anthony

  185. This is fine with me as long as they also boycott all forms of U.S. aid , including cash, loans, gifts , subsidies and free goods we provide to many of these countries

  186. Paul in Sweden says:
    November 19, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    “The Stern “Boycott USA” rant could piss off various groups in the USA enough to independently boycott UK products. I can imagine various USA radio shock jocks calling for Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s holiday boycotts of UK beer, etc just to send a message back to Lord Stern.”

    I just went and looked at US imports from UK and couldn’t find anything to boycott. I’d have to be a customer first and I ain’t. Just don’t ask me to boycott Asia or Central/South America as I buy so many things from those continents I would hardly know where to start.

  187. I feel embarrassed to be called British when I hear outrageously stupid comments like this from a so called Brit who should know better. Who was responsible for giving this man a peerage? He is undeserving of the title and ought to have it removed.

  188. The likes of Stern have invested so much in the CO2 scare, and encouraged others to waste our money on the nonsense. Now they see the bottom falling out of it and themselves reviled as mountebanks.

    No wonder he’s desperate, even so this is laughable.

    It’s dead Nick, it’s deceased, it’s an ex-scare.

  189. I agree the USA should stop all trade:
    First EXPORT all non-Americans immigrants – ALL. (Canadians and Latinos are Americans)

    Second Toss the Federal Reserve Traitors out and confiscate all gold/gold certificates that FDR took from the US citizens so it is about time we took it back. Cancel any and all US citizens obligations to pay for the Federal reserves debt. Also withdraw from the UN and World Bank, Stop ALL Foreign Aid and withdraw ALL US troops world wide.

    Third close the borders to ALL food Import/Export:

    “…The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s weekly export figures released this morning show a 49 percent increase in corn exports from the previous week and a 35 percent increase from the previous monthly average.

    Prime corn customers were Mexico, Japan, South Korea and Egypt. International corn markets have tightened in recent weeks because of drought-related shortages of export corn from Russia and the Ukraine, both of which have embargoed exports because of short crops.

    Soybean exports were up 17 percent last week from the previous week on continued strong buying by China.

    For the export year, U.S. corn exports are up 24 percent, according to the USDA. Soybean exports are up 5 percent from last year’s record totals.

    Strong export demand is a factor in the 60 percent rise in the price of corn and 33 percent rise in soybeans since early June…..” http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/10/15/soybeans-hit-12-overnight/

    “The U.S. share of world wheat exports has fluctuated from a high of 50 percent in 1973/74 to 30-40 percent in 1982/83-95/96, and between 20-30 percent thereafter…. Over the last decade, U.S. wheat exports have exceeded 30 million metric tons only twice. They peaked in 2007/08, when they reached 34 million metric tons, comprising 30 percent of world wheat exports…..” http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/wheat/trade.htm

    U.S. soybean farmers already have one reason to give thanks this fall — 2008 exports of U.S. soy have set another all-time record. This year over 1.5 billion bushels of soy were exported from the United States….. http://southeastfarmpress.com/markets/us-soybean-exports-set-another-record

    “Corn is by far the largest component of global coarse-grain trade, accounting for about three-quarters of total volume in recent years. (Coarse grains make up a common trade category that includes corn, sorghum, barley, oats, and rye.)

    …The U.S. share of world corn exports averaged 60 percent during 2003/04-2007/08 (the international trade year is October-September. U.S. corn exports soared in the 1970s from 13 million metric tons at the start of the decade to a record 62 million in 1979/80….The United States experienced record demand and corn production during 2007/08 that pushed U.S corn exports to 61 million metric tons.” http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/corn/trade.htm

    Given that, thanks to the idiotic government policies, the UK is a major food importer I think Mr. Stern should go on a two month fast to rethink his statement.

    From a UK farming site:
    SLEEPWALK TO STARVATION
    “With hindsight, it was the late 1990’s and the first decade of the 21st Century when farming went into irreversible decline as it lurched and staggered like a perpetual drunkard from crisis to disaster…” http://warmwell.com/redpollpredict.html

    “”I can’t wait to get to Canada,” Theresa said. “It’s wide and open and regulation-free.”You can trade there without all the interference and form-filling that happens here”
    …That so many farmers are leaving farming – and even the country – in droves is entirely due to government policies in recent years. It is a tragedy for the country and for the countryside and is based on nothing more than political arrogance, ignorance and a refusal to listen. The spin against farmers in recent months has added to the heartbreak. But the country will be in a dire state when the penny finally drops that cheap food imports do not stay cheap for long once the country can no longer support itself. “

    http://www.warmwell.com/warm1jul102.html

  190. Really a shame about Robert Jeremy Grantham. He is a halfway decent person. I have known him professionally for 15 years or so. His problem is that he has no scientific education in the least. A reasonable macro-economist and economic historian, but that is the end of his talent set. Reasonable to listen to on the topics of the economy and the stock market, but beyond that, sorry, RJG, you do not cut the mustard. When I say bar to you, the only thing that would come to mind is something that serves drinks, not 1.013 bars which is sea level pressure in the standard atmosphere.

    It’s always a lot easier to be a screaming moron about these topics when you have made your bucks. The performance of his funds are available at http://www.gmo.com for those that are open to folks other than “qualified investors”.

  191. John Peter says: November 19, 2010 at 11:55 am:

    USA may be the largest importer, but only No. 3 as exporter after China and Germany.

    You are correct John. Thank you for the correction. My information was older than 2009.

  192. Asked what type of US products could face restrictions, Lord Stern said: “Aircraft, clearly, some cars, machine tools — it’s not simply what’s in the capital good, it’s what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating
    I give up, does this clown actually think the singular of “goods”, as in commodities, is “good?” There would appear to be a collection of ridiculous words these cranks are duty bound to use.

  193. Curiousgeorge says:
    November 19, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    tallbloke says:
    November 19, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    James Sexton says:
    November 19, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    tallbloke says:
    November 19, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    What is this? the weekly ten minute hate?
    =======================================================

    Well, you know its just vent. Some of us are given to a knee jerk reaction from time to time, but, we’re tied to our cousins across the pond in more ways than just trade. Britannia and her offspring will always be tied to each other.

    ==================================================

    Although my direct ancestors came to the New World in 1632 from England, I feel no loyalty to the Crown or any of the so-called “Nobles”. In fact, several of my ancestors put holes in their armies for good reason. There was a little thing called the American Revolution, you know.
    =======================================================

    Yes, it isn’t loyalty to Crown or Nobles of which I spoke. Nor do I believe Stern is representative of the people of G.B. But the loyalty which you rightly perceived is the loyalty of a common bond with the common peoples of the various nations, forged by the steel of Bertha guns and Panzers, fired by a Rising Sun. Our dogged tenacity to thwart a Maxist bear, and today, our fight against the insidious totalitarian attempts to control our energy and freedoms.

    The mouthing and hand waving of a buffoon shouldn’t be an impetus for anger towards our present band of brothers. The American Revolution and the war of 1812 was, of course, quit necessary and appropriate in order for us to pursue our own destiny and build a society unlike any other. That history should never be forgotten.

    Let’s not forget, too, we have our own share of village idiots. Stern doesn’t speak for G.B. anymore than Hansen or Mann speaks for the U.S.

  194. Would one of you fine folks over the other side of the pond show his lordship back to his nursing home.

  195. Peter Miller says:
    November 19, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    “I also have some Stern-like ideas.

    The British parliament repeals the North America Act, so America is once again a colony.

    Then the Brits send a gunboat to enforce re-colonisation….”
    _____________________________________________________________

    You are about one hundred years too late. The Brits (Bank of England) sent Paul Warburg to confiscate all of the wealth from the USA and has done a bang-up job of it.

    Congressman McFadden: Remarks in Congress, 1934

    “….The statement that it is necessary for the people to give their gold- the only real money- to the banks in order to protect the currency, is a statement of calculated dishonesty!

    “By his unlawful usurpation of power on the night of March 5, 1933, and by his proclamation, which in my opinion was in violation of the Constitution of the United States, Roosevelt divorced the currency of the United States from gold, and the United States currency is no longer protected by gold. It is therefore sheer dishonesty to say that the people’s gold is needed to protect the currency.

    “Roosevelt ordered the people to give their gold to private interests- that is, to banks, and he took control of the banks so that all the gold and gold values in them, or given into them, might be handed over to the predatory International Bankers who own and control the Fed.

    “Roosevelt cast his lot with the usurers. “He agreed to save the corrupt and dishonest at the expense of the people of the United States.

    “He took advantage of the people’s confusion and weariness and spread the dragnet over the United States to capture everything of value that was left in it. He made a great haul for the International Bankers.

    “The Prime Minister of England came here for money! He came here to collect cash.

    “He came here with Fed Currency and other claims against the Fed which England had bought up in all parts of the world. And he has presented them for redemption in gold.

    “Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of compelling the Fed to pay their own debts. I see no reason why the general public should be forced to pay the gambling debts of the International Bankers…..” http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html

  196. DesertYote says:
    November 19, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Al Gored
    November 19, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    I wonder who the world’s leading unicorn ranching economist is?

    ###

    That would be Gregg Gutfeld.
    ======================================================

    That guy is a riot! “And if you disagree with me, you’re a (fill in the blank)phobe!

  197. I just went and looked at US imports from UK and couldn’t find anything to boycott.

    My company sells a lot to the US. Ironically mostly technologies that measure temperatures (infrared)!

  198. This is absolutely nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with the worldwide attempt by a political and financial clique, of all races and nations, to rip the rest of the world off through ‘the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ , as Prof. Lewis said. The cabal of crimatologists is international. I might just as well regard all you Yanks as just the same as Mann, Romm, Hansen etc.
    Let’s get real, we all have to see past that rubbish and make sure we win this struggle against the agw cult. Any RC troll reading this post and its comments will be sniggering at how easily the sceptics are diverted from the real issue and squabble over irrelevant trivia. UK, US, Oz, NZ, Canada, Europe, etc., we’re all trying to find ways to stop these cynical tricksters. Can we stop slagging each other off please? Oh, and I have no intention of apologising for Stern, I despise these people, they don’t represent me.

  199. North of 43 and south of 44 says: November 19, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Would one of you fine folks over the other side of the pond show his lordship back to his nursing home.

    ==============================

    Unfortunately, with the Climate Change Act being passed with next to no dissent, and other nonsense such as the Large Plant Directive from the EU being enforced, Stern is not alone in his lunacy. Anyway, he is in a nursing home – we call it the House of Lords.

    You can see the same contagious insanity with your crowd, but they seem to have more natural resistance and there are signs that the epidemic has peaked.

  200. The United States will be banned from selling goods to many countries if it continues to shirk its promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to the world’s leading climate change economist.

    The “world’s leading climate change economist” sounds about as rational as the “world’s leading climate change scientists”. Were they to succeed, there either wouldn’t be any “goods” to sell, or else no one would be able to buy them anyway.

  201. Peter Miller says:
    November 19, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    “Then the Brits send a gunboat to enforce re-colonisation.”

    You’ve obviously not been following the UK MOD funding debacle.

    http://www.insidermedia.com/insider/south-west/41418-/

    “Companies related to the defence sector in the South West are being urged to expand into the green energy sector following the government’s decision to cut the Ministry of Defence’s budget by 8 per cent over the next four years.”

    I don’t think the British Government will be in a position to send anything but a broken down windmill.

  202. Complete nonsense from Lord Stern but if they do it would be the best thing for the US in the long run. We’ll simply put a trade embargo on their products and balance our budget for a change.

  203. This is absolutely nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with the worldwide attempt by a political and financial clique, of all races and nations, to rip the rest of the world

    Isn’t Stern a Club of Rome member?

  204. @Roger Longstaff

    Sorry, Stern and Brown didn’t get along well.
    They each thought the other was an idiot.
    Worryingly, they were both right.
    And if you want insanity about the UK armed forces, try asking why they would buy a military transport that is inferior in every way to the US offering, and many times the price.
    You may also consider that there are two aircraft carriers under construction, and no aircraft to fly from them, and no money to buy any when they are finally built: And worse, no catapults have been included in the design so anything other than VSTOL will not be able to fly fromm them, and the UK VSTOL (Harrier) is being pensioned-off.
    Insanity is not just the sport of economists.

  205. I love the irony. Britain’s only true gains in cutting co2 emissions have come from converting their energy source from coal to natural gas and then outsourcing their manufacturing to India and China where they primarily use coal. Even the Guardian now recognises that if emissions are calculated from imports there has been no reduction in emissions.

  206. Enneagram November 19, 2010 at 10:09 am says:

    BTW, it seems that in their effort for making Green airplanes they have exaggerated and made them from a wafered material: Aluminum-Carbon Fiber-Aluminum, in this order, which is : Conductor-dielectric-conductor …

    I see someone beat me to it, nonetheless, pls take note of where Carbon is on the Periodic Table of the Elements re: conductive characteristics …

    .

  207. Hmmm….: In any potential ”trade war” between a few countries in western Europe and the U.S., Canada, China, India, Russia, et. al.: Who do y’all think is gonna come out on the short end of the stick ?? Bet I know the answer. . . .

  208. From another of Gail’s tall-tales:

    You are about one hundred years too late. The Brits (Bank of England) sent Paul Warburg to confiscate all of the wealth from the USA and has …

    Oh brother more tales from ‘the far side’ … re: ‘confiscation’, please explain Michael Dell, Bill Gates, The “Oracle of Omaha” (Buffet) ?

    .

  209. UK commenters, please don’t apologize.

    After all, we have Gore, don’t we? And others!

    I was discussing this with my daughter, and she mentioned the following:

    I have to say she may be on to something, as there certainly may be some car doors slamming in the streets of Brentford tonight! :D

  210. JEM
    November 19, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Cool, Thanks for the information. The author of the book I was referring to, Crawford Kilian, uses a lot of historic references in his writing.

  211. Michaelangelo was allowed to touch his own art to see if it was dry.

    I think you will find Michaelangelo’s fingerprints on the art he created.

    Look for it and you will find those prints.

  212. Still, to this day, they will deny someone like Jessee Ventura from filming at JFK’s grave. Now Whatts that all about?

  213. Boycott US aircraft? some automobiles? machine tools? in 2020? This weasel should put down his martini or sherry and look around a little. Ha! Mulally’s Boeing sold out manufacturing to China and the rest of the world years ago (check out his legacy with a web search of the Boeing 787/Dream(nightmare)liner. China is now in the airliner business, competing w/Boeing and Airbus, but China realizes (and protects) a strategic (national) business when it sees one. Mulally’s next project is major “Chinafication” (Ford Motor internal code name). Not that Mulally’s done it all by himself, but he seems to be the poster boy for selling out USA assets as fast as possible. Plenty of “help” from US “free”-trade “policy”. Time to short Ford stock if you’re foolish enough to own it. Newly issued GM stock at ~$34/share, while the bailout break-even price is ~$133/share for “the US government” to break even. And US machine tools? Maybe he’s thinking of German cars and machine tools. By 2020, the US will be a 3rd rate player in airliners and cars. Have been a minor player in machine tools for a while. WTF is this clown?

  214. The British government and political ruling elite/class as a whole are in the grip of a kind of insanity.

    A madness hangs in the air around them leading them to make insane choices far removed from reality or common sense based value judgements. National defence priorities are ignored while money is lavished on ridiculous white elephant vanity projects, money that could be used for defence equipment purchase from our closet ally the USA is given away in aid to our direct and would be enemies and competitors.

    National UK government now appears to be less organized than a chimps tea party and as surreal as a mad hatters tea party, how ironic then that our only saviour could well be an American tea party!

    To our Wonderful American brothers and sisters I say, please remember that our ruling class do not represent us, the British people are in the grip of a small minority of fools and idiots who claim to represent us but in reality only represent themselves and their eurotrash masters. There are those in the UK who wish to split us from our best friends and weld us to a foreign and hostile empire wannabe in the form of the budding EUSSR.

    There would be no problem if only a couple of ‘daisy cutter MOABs’ could accidentally find their way onto Brussels and Westminster somehow, ah well maybe plan B?

  215. Dont worry “Lord”. I am sure the USA wont use their massive military to open up your markets should you decide to be foolish.

    OPEC tried to bully the USA back in the day. And now all but 1 opec member has been bought out with cash or bombed to have their government replaced or backtrack on their aggressive nature. Only 1 actively anti-USA nation in OPEC remains, and the bombs will be falling on that nation within the next decade if not sooner. They have already been isolated by the USA and her allies.

    Do you really want to try to force a green version of OPEC? Why leave your nations open to assault by the USA? And they will assault you if you try to undermine them. I know Europe actively yearns for a fall of the USA, but remember, the vacuum to come from that will not be filled from a state in Europe. They will not be a western power, and they wont be friendly to Europe. Enjoy your friendship with a superpower while you still can instead of insulting her. If America falls, western civilization falls.

  216. Cassandra King wrote:

    “There would be no problem if only a couple of ‘daisy cutter MOABs’ could accidentally find their way onto Brussels and Westminster somehow, ah well maybe plan B?”

    Cassandra, I think I like your line of thought. Or perhaps neutron bombs? Accidentally of course. Though there might be some ironic justice if the missile guidance systems sold to the Chinese by Loral’s Bernie Schwartz w/Bubba Clinton’s approval, managed to misguide their way to Brussels, Westminster and Bernie’s SoCal home. There is some nice architecture in Brussels and Westminster, after all.

  217. We had this idiot appear recently in Australia to push his political economic agenda, spiced with liberal distortions about climate. He was here to join with Ross Garnault his mini me economist with the same rant and author of the Garnault Report. Part of the world wide push by economists to spread their influence and serve the shadowy interest that back them.

    Boy this present challenge will be a real test of the US President’s “Metal” to either stand up or bow down as some of you seem to think he will. I guess he is in a somewhat unusual position, facing open threats from STERN to isolate the US economy and then having George Soros standing in the shadows behind him and making dark threats to pull the financial plug on him if he doesn’t produce the results as they pull his strings.

    Perhaps he just might prove to have a bit of steel in his backbone and tell them all to go jump – your President, your economy to sell down the river. I hope he stands up because we had a Prime minister (Paul Keating) that bowed down and kissed the ground of Indonesia to sell himself in their support and he didn’t last long after that. strange the media only showed that TV shot once, but that was enough for most thinking Australians.

  218. _Jim says:
    November 19, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    From another of Gail’s tall-tales:

    You are about one hundred years too late. The Brits (Bank of England) sent Paul Warburg to confiscate all of the wealth from the USA and has …

    Oh brother more tales from ‘the far side’ … re: ‘confiscation’, please explain Michael Dell, Bill Gates, The “Oracle of Omaha” (Buffet) ?
    ======================================================

    Jim, I hate to be your wet blanket, but you’re confusing tangible value with imagined or inferred wealth. The people you mentioned, have relatively very little tangible value. Most of their wealth is tied to the value of the market shares of their respective companies. Which, when thought of in terms of U.S. dollars, is backed by the good faith and credit of the U.S. treasury. There is no tangible value. Further, their wealth is only as much as the viability of their respective companies. In other words, if the market deems Dell no longer viable, then Mike Dells worth goes to almost nothing, same with MS/Gates and BH/Buffet. Why? With the exception of Dell they produce no tangible goods that hold value, and Dell’s product, the actual value of a PC is negligible. I’m not saying these companies don’t produce worthy products, although Buffet’s probably don’t, I’m saying in the end of the day, if one was to confiscate all the assets of each company, they’d end up with very little. Software, pc cases and maybe a decent server or two, and a lot of paper. No intrinsic value. Gold can easily be converted to goods with intrinsic value.

    I probably did a poor job, but I tried to highlight the difference between a inferred wealth and intrinsic value. I hoped that helped.

  219. Stern is the clown who invented a 1.5-2% discount rate in order to “prove” climate intervention is economically justified. Now he has to use guns to force people to lend him money at that rate. What a fool.

  220. Ominous signs that the UN is begining to govern the world and bypass anything that’s still left of the sovereignty of individual nations.

  221. Where is the mainstream journalist – just one – who will raise his or her pen in righteous indignation and spell out what is obvious to everybody with half a faculty? That this man is mad. Has been driven mad by all of you. All of you fawning journalists for fawning over his nonsense. Driven mad by the empty salutations of UN bodies, of politicans and by the enoblement of the previous government.

    You don’t suppose it’s a coincidence that the mainstream media are being ignored by ever-greater numbers over here in the U.S. of A. ? Not sure if the same phenomenon is happening on the U.K. side of the pond.

    The blogosphere (I hate that word) is taking over, the MSM are dying, at least in part because they don’t call these buffoons to task.

  222. well, we have lord stern, and you have al gore, i reckon that makes us even. I live in a town called Rickmansworth, where william penn was married, and lived in basing house in the town, and at penn farm, in chorleywood, both still standing, penn farm a magnificent old building, a half mile from my house. Some of us had to stay!. Lord Stern has never paid a bill in his life, never been hungry or cold, and yet , prescribes for us all.
    Are there any genuine politicians now? Answers on the back of a postage stamp please

  223. Lord Stern probably has no idea what taxes are. Considering most industrial processes (especially in the UK and EU) he really has nothing to back himself on.

  224. _Jim says:
    November 19, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    From another of Gail’s tall-tales:

    no tall tales jim

    there really was a paul warburg

    there really is a federal reserve

    they really did confiscate all the gold

    we really do have debt-money

    several people have pointed out that is the single most important issue we face. and the same thieves who benefit from our debt-money system are simply trying to steal even more of our work through carbon tax and trade

    these are are all just scams to take from those who work and give to those who don’t – the owning class

  225. This is such a clear proof of Stern’s disconnect from reality. Trade is being done because it is beneficial for both sides. The idea that the U.K. would “punish” the U.S. by banning any trade is completely preposterous. Chances are that it would be much more devastating for the U.K.

    The U.S. takes 14% of the U.K. exports and sends 9% of the U.K. imports. ;-) In total, it’s close to $100 billion a year. Is Mr Stern going to stand in the ports and physically prevent ships with $100 billion to move by another meter? Does he expect the trade partners to say that he is right? I can’t believe that someone like that isn’t yet confined between the walls of a psychiatric asylum.

  226. RE: R. de Haan: (November 19, 2010 at 9:32 am)
    “Lord Stern must be afraid that Great Britain’s Green suicide program will bankrupt the country before the US.”

    From this video, it sounds like the U.K could even go bankrupt even before the State of California. I do not know how this might come to pass — perhaps an act of Parliament ‘refudiating’ the national debt. I think the implosive economic effects of either event would far exceed the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. Perhaps no nation os state should be allowed to go more than something like five times its gross national annual product in debt.

    I have noted that this country is increasingly being blamed for all the problems in the world and a worldwide boycott of the USA would be very serious. I fear, however, that a counter boycott of the UK might bring on the first major killing famine of the modern era there.

  227. Lord Stern might like to trot along to the “City”, and into St Paul’s Cathedral. At the East end is an apse. This end was damaged in WWII and when rebuilt, it was consecrated as the American Memorial Chapel.

    This was done for a reason. Thousands of those reasons lie in the American cemetery in Cambridge, and many thousands more across Europe.

    Those reasons, gave Stern the right and freedom to be a “plonker”.

    Ignore him, that is what they hate most.

  228. Oh, and sorry about this, but if obama was born in kenya, that means he is British.
    ( see, ya still cant get away from us!)

  229. I just wanted to say (although I still read all the site) that I stopped posting on here a few weeks back due to the sometimes slack-jawed responses (of which I was very disappointed). When I read the headline to this I just knew we were going to have the usual suspects on a bizarre anti-British rant. Some 300 posts in now, it’s too late to remind some that Stern’s ridiculous posture isn’t about trade boycotts based on trade, but based on climate change. Yet so many here have managed to turn it into some childish attack on Britain! At fear of sounding pompous, I really do think the level of intelligent debate on here has gone down in recent months – I don’t know why.

  230. Lubos is correct (this was in our national press recently) the US remains the UK’s biggest customer, so we’re hardly likely to allow any trade war which wouldn’t be to the UK’s benefit! This nonsense from Stern should have been taken with the contempt it deserves, not taken seriously.

  231. “…Lord Stern said that Europe and the Far East (sic) were forging ahead of the US in controlling emissions and switching to low carbon sources of energy. They would not tolerate having their industries undermined by American competitors that had not paid for their emissions…. “

    Um? Have I got this right? The US is going to UNDERCUT Chinese industry costs if it doesn’t tax it’s people ‘properly’?

    Has Stern no idea of the differential in production costs between the two places? Does he understand how large the projected taxes would have to be for this to be true? Where is this La-La land that Stern so obviously inhabits? Can I have some of whatever he’s smoking…?

  232. Stern is supposed to be an economist, he is certainly not a scientist.
    Stern is coming out with as mush rubbish as Holdren and Hansen. They must email each other, and then delete them of course.

  233. Stern is totally bonkers, a defining trait that is a primary requirement for all those holding public office in the UK.

  234. Does anyone take this preposterous little man seriously?
    Consultant to G20? Surely only as court jester.

  235. @ Ray says:

    “After England pillaged the world (back then…) now they want to redistribute other people’s wealth. Lord Stern needs to be reminded that India and Canada are part of the Empire, the Commonwealth. Those measures won’t go very far and fall in the Thames waters.”

    England (you really mean Britain) did not “pillage the world.” Enormous sums of British money were invested in countries all over the world. Some economic historians think it would have been better for the UK if some of that money had been invested at home. It was not just the British Empire that benefited. During the 19th century the United States was greatly aided in its development by British capital and technology. Up until World War I Britain was the main foreign investor in much of South America.

    Lord Stern by no means reflects British public opinion. He is just somebody who provides some sort of economic justification for the more extreme policies of the Green movement. Unfortunately the government does tend to listen to him because they think that cultivating a green image is good for their popularity.

    However, not all Lord Stern’s ideas should be dismissed. If you really want to eliminate the human contribution to increases in CO2 levels then boycotting goods from the United States would help, but it would not be enough. Every nation should boycott every other nation. The resulting economic crisis would lead to a global shutdown of industry and drastic reductions in CO2 emissions.

  236. If Britain doesn’t change it ways soon and stop drinking the green cool-aid I don’t think it will even be around in 2020.

  237. _Jim says:
    November 19, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    ” From another of Gail’s tall-tales:

    You are about one hundred years too late. The Brits (Bank of England) sent Paul Warburg to confiscate all of the wealth from the USA and has …

    Oh brother more tales from ‘the far side’ … re: ‘confiscation’, please explain Michael Dell, Bill Gates, The “Oracle of Omaha” (Buffet) ?”
    ___________________________________________________________
    I see the banker’s shill is at it again taking pot shots without backing up his position.

    For anyone who is confused about what has been going on since the bankers grabbed control of the US dollar in 1913 here is a bit more info:

    The transfer of WEALTH (not fiat currency) has been from the poor and middle class to the rich. Yes some people have managed to move from middle class to rich but the doors have been increasingly shut in the faces of the average citizen for the last century. In the 1950’s you could babysitter, clean a house or do any number of jobs without having a master degree in business law and tax accounting. Now thanks to various tax laws designed to “protect the worker” (snicker) you have to work for an employment agency who charges $100 for your labor and pays you $10 with no benefits. (Actual fact from a disgruntled Technical Writer) You can not even take travel expense off your taxes because you are now an “employee” and not an independent business person.

    That is what all the increasing regulations are about such as the EPA, OSHA, USDA, and now the new regs requiring a 1099 to be filled out every time a small business spends over $600 buying supplies at any one vendor. (It take me around 15 minutes per 1099 – IF the vendor is willing to give me his Social Security number or EIN)

    SEE: 1099 tax rule may bring big pain to small business http://blogs.reuters.com/deep-pocket/2010/10/20/1099-tax-rule-may-bring-big-pain-to-small-business/

    Another new nasty that effects my next door neighbor is this one:
    FDA Estimates Vendor Compliance With Calorie Disclosure Rules Will Require 14 Million Hours Annually; NAMA Petitions For Relief http://www.vendingtimes.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=EB79A487112B48A296B38C81345C8C7F&nm=Vending+Features&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=32C0EEC712E74BC88710FE3C98EFE99F

    And just in case you wonder about the impact on the average citizen:
    Small businesses employ about half of U.S. workers. Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics
    Small firms:
    • Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
    • Employ half of all private sector employees.
    • Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
    • Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
    • Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
    • Hire 43 percent of high tech workers (scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
    • Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
    • Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
    • Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.
    http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf

    R. de Haan pointed to an article that list the newest additions to the Banking/Corporate Cartels attempt to get rid of the competition:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30140

    To see that I am not crazy all you have to do is look at what has happened to the value of fiat currency vs gold (the real monetary standard) and the minimum wage.

    I quoted this:
    “In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker.” http://timelines.ws/subjects/Labor.HTML

    Here is the independent back up:
    In 1976:
    gold= $124.74/oz, Money supply=$113 billion, min wage=$2.30 or 0.0184oz gold & CEO =0.663oz
    In 2008:
    gold=$880.30/oz, Money supply=$831 billion, min wage=$5.85 or 0.0066 oz gold & CEO =2.44oz

    Note how the price of gold and the money supply both rose by about factor of eight. The CEO real salary, in gold, increased by over a factor of 3.5 times. But look what happened to the factory worker. He had an illusionary doubling of his wage in fiat money when actually it was DECREASED to 1/3 of what his counter part was making in GOLD in 1976.

    This is how the bankers and corporate CEOs are stealing the wealth of the poor and middle class by stealth using a combination of highly inflated prices for goods and wages that do not keep pace.

    And now the money supply has over DOUBLED during Obama’s reign.
    Money Supply: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/BOGUMBNS.txt
    Gold price: http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/curency/goldmarketprice.htm
    Min Wage: http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

    The financial instability of the US dollar and the US economy has not gone unnoticed over seas:
    “The global creditors for the US Treasury Bonds are so angry at the past suffered losses, the prospect of deep future losses, and the corruption laced throughout the US financial system, that they have hired third parties to kill off the US$-gold platforms…” http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/comex-gold-price-manipulation-stress-near-breaking-point/

    “The Germans have demanded that gold bullion held in US custodial accounts be returned to their owners, with physical gold shipped back to Germany. The Dubai bankers have demanded that gold bullion held in London custodial accounts be returned to their owners, with physical gold shipped back to the United Arab Emirates. They are following the hired German counsel. In all likelihood, neither US nor London sources are in possession of all the gold held in those custodial accounts, since at least some of it probably was improperly leased. By that is meant without owner permission or knowledge. So an uproar could come soon with charges of gold bullion theft, or at least failure of fiduciary responsibility. Theft is a simpler description.” http://news.goldseek.com/GoldenJackass/1243519200.php

    “Hong Kong is pulling all its physical gold holdings from depositories in London, transferring them to a high-security depository newly built at the city’s airport, in a move that won praise from local traders Thursday.” http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hong-kong-recalls-gold-reserves-from-london-2009-09-03

    Remember the Bankers and the Communists/Socialist are “good friends” because none want ” national auto-determination” they all want a world controlled by them. As Daniel Estulin said in his Bilderberg Speech at EU Parliament Press Conference http://beforeitsnews.com/story/73/389/Transcript_Video_Daniel_Estulin_Bilderberg_Speech_at_EU_Parliament_Press_Conference.html

    “Not One World Government or New World Order as too many people mistakenly believe. Rather, the ideology is of a ONE WORLD COMPANY LIMITED.”

  238. UK Sceptic says:
    November 20, 2010 at 2:12 am
    Stern is totally bonkers, a defining trait that is a primary requirement for all those holding public office in the UK.

    And a prerequisite for elevation to our peerage. There is nothing noble about a political appointee to the current House of Venality.

  239. Only read a few comments but I can tell Nick’s got the USA really rattled!

    /sarc

    Sorry folks, we have some real idiots here. What a prat!

    DaveE.

  240. I see Stern as stereotypical.

    Therefore, the level of any British AGW advocate’s credibility was best assessed by Star Trek’s Doc McCoy, “Its dead Jim”.

    John

  241. I take it this predicted boycott of 10 years in the future is having trouble finding its wings.

    Meanwhile back here on the ranch, we have a white winter wonderland. The sun shines and its 25F as snow covers the immediate valley and the mountains beyond both East and West. Whats not to like? I suppose one can also go to Cancun if one desires some relative warmth.

  242. From another apologetic and embarrassed brit: what is it about us, perhaps many centuries condemned to polite small-talk about the weather have finally driven us to climate insanity. We have some spectacular examples:

    David “Lord” King, former (get this!) CHIEF GOVT SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR – “in a few years we will have to send breeding couples to the Antarctic to preserve the human race from AGW”.

    Moron.

    (“sweet”) Fanny Armstrong: The 10-10 “no pressure” film.

    Moron.

    + many others I’m sure you could name…

    And now, Lord Stern: “lets boycott the whole USA!”

    Moron.

    Lets not leave out old Fizza, Phil Jones:
    “Delete all emails…”
    “Mike’s Nature trick…”
    “hooray! – John Daly just died!”
    “hide the decline…”
    “lets purge the IPCC review committee…”

    This guy’s not stupid, just evil.

  243. “Bullying won’t win any friends to his side.” – JudyW

    So true. This puts me in mind of the time the Guardian provided instructions and inspiration for it’s UK readers to write to Ohio residents to beg them to vote against Bush.

    It backfired – Bush carried Ohio and the election with thanks to the Guardian.

    We should give Lord Stern’s threats the widest possible circulation.

  244. British Lords should be taken with a big pinch of salt.

    Of course Lord Monckton is a bit of a hero around here, though he shouldn’t be.

    Andy

  245. Robert A says:
    November 20, 2010 at 7:30 am

    We should give Lord Stern’s threats the widest possible circulation.

    ————–

    Robert A,

    Yes, Stern’s position can only weaken an already tenuous AGW position. Their credibility is destroyed incrementally with each repetition of his/their bizarre credo/dogma.

    John

  246. James Sexton says:
    November 19, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    “The people you mentioned, have relatively very little tangible value. Most of their wealth is tied to the value of the market shares of their respective companies.”

    Michael Dell owns or controls 221 million shares of Dell stock which at $14/sh is about $3 billion. His net worth is estimated at $14 billion. He is well diversified in his investment portfolio and has been for many years. Hopefully you’re not in the habit in making things up out of thin air but you certainly did in this case.

  247. John F. Hultquist says:
    November 19, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    Dave Springer says: at 3:47 pm I just went and looked at US imports from UK and couldn’t find anything to boycott.

    For good or bad, I believe Scotland is still part of the UK and one needs to be careful about who and what one is boycotting.

    http://www.scotlandwhisky.com/distilleries/

    I drink hardly any whisky and on the rare occasions when I do it’s from Kentucky.

  248. beesaman says:
    November 19, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    “Sorry but posts like Dave Springer’s should have no place on a site like this. Not funny, not necessary and deeply hurtful to Brits who lost family in WW2.”

    A great many Americans lost family in WWII including myself. My father was a tail gunner in a B-26 Marauder (medium bomber) based out of England. He survived 25 bombing runs over occupied Europe and Germany. He was one of the lucky ones. Get off your high horse. 420,000 American servicement lost their lives fighting YOUR war. Total UK casualties including civilians was 450,000. We poured as much blood into that conflict as the UK and far more treasure. Europeans who forget the debt they owe to the United States deserve our contempt.

  249. @Anthony

    Just a suggestion but there’s a WordPress feature where authors can turn off comments for an article. This article is a poster child for why that feature exists. Consider it next time you decide to instigate a war of words across the pond.

    REPLY: And consider getting your own blog if you want to run one. – Anthony

  250. I know that the good Lord Monckton has too much class to snipe at anyone, but I would love to know what he is thinking about this two-bit “Lord”.

    When is your Parlament going to reverse itself regarding the hereditary peerages, or is it waiting for the EU to tell it what to do? At least the hereditary lords were given a proper education.

    Where is Gilbert and Sullivan when we need them?

    “Oh a British tar is a soaring soul, as free as a mountain bird”
    “His ever ready fist is ready to resist a dictatorial word”.

  251. So let me get this straight. Some guy with a British sounding name wants to tax us over here without the people’s consent. Yeh Lord Stupid. That’s a good idea.

  252. Dave Springer says:
    November 20, 2010 at 8:39 am

    I drink hardly any whisky and on the rare occasions when I do it’s from Kentucky.

    ————–

    Dave Springer,

    I do love the good Scottish single malts dearly. However, should a trade war, instigated by the like of Stern, breakout then that would clearly give businessmen in the USA considerable incentive to buy a few good unemployed (by Stern’s trade war) distillers to immigrate to the USA and we will have the good stuff produced here in the USA and Canada after some aging years. In fact, we don’t need to wait for a trade war started by the likes of Stern. I am looking for a few investors as of now. : )

    Dear Mr. Stern . . . . thanks for the lovely idea.

    I leave you with a quote from Von Mises, “Free trade begins at home.” from his book ‘Omnipotent Government’ p. 237. I think that means if Britain heavily interferes (interventionism) with its own economy to the point of virtual socialism then of course they cannot advocate international free trade consistently . . . . therefore the likes of Stern.

    Von Mises Institute is found at; http://mises.org/quotes.aspx

    John

  253. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley, if what you want is erudite intercourse among the intelligentsia, might I suggest the hallowed halls of the Ivory Tower. I hear they have such intercourse as exampled by their sterling emails to each other.

    As for me, I’ve decided I have had my fill of hopey changy snobbery, and I voted for it! So call me slack mouthed!

  254. It is time for Brits to revert to their old ways. I have in mind how peers were dealt with when they got out of line. They were imprisoned in the Tower of London and later beheaded if they refused to accept banishment and forfeiture of their estates.

  255. @ Dave Springer

    “Get off your high horse. 420,000 American servicement lost their lives fighting YOUR war. Total UK casualties including civilians was 450,000. We poured as much blood into that conflict as the UK and far more treasure. ”

    This is not really relevant to discussions of Lord Stern’s daft proposals. However I am sure that most British people, like me, are grateful to America for its role in the war and are particularly grateful to those Americans like your father who risked their lives in it.

    However you dishonour the role of such Americans by referring to it as “YOUR war” unless you mean it in the sense that it was a war that Britain CHOSE to fight. Hitler did not want war with Britain and would have been willing to make peace in return for a free hand against Russia. Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess, flew to Britain to try and make contact with people willing to negotiate with Hitler. If the German overtures had been accepted Germany would probably have gone on to defeat the Soviet Union and would have been in effective control of all Europe and the USSR. In that case the United States would not be the dominant power in the world today.

    As a proportion of our population Britain’s loses were considerably greater than those of the US in both world wars, especially WWI. The United States did contribute considerably more in absolute terms to the financial costs of WWII but again not in relative terms. After WWI Britain never regained its former place in the global economy. We emerged from WWII almost bankrupt having sacrificed a huge proportion of our GDP in the defeat of the Axis powers.

    Please note I am not in any way trying to minimise the contribution America made to the cause of freedom in the two world wars or to preserving freedom during the cold war.

    By all means criticise Lord Stern. I can understand Americans who talk about retaliating against the UK and EU if, and only if, his proposals were adopted. However the (unfortunate) fact that he is British should not be an excuse for anti-British diatribes any more than the fact that Al Gore is American should be an excuse for anti-American diatribes.

    [Reply: Stern does not speak for UK citizens any more than Gore speaks for Americans. The rank-and-file British and American citizens are allies, not enemies. That state of affairs ended in 1812. ~dbs, mod.]

  256. I am disappointed by the decidely puerile, emotional and partisan nature of most of the comments on this thread. The remarks attributed to Lord Stern by The Times did not deserve such derision; given the background of belief in AGW, they were actually quite sensible. When it says, “… nations that were taking strong action on emissions could start imposing restrictions on “dirty” US exports by 2020″ it doesn’t mean boycotting or banning imports, it means imposing the same carbon tax on them as applies to domestic products, so they do not have an unfair advantage. In suggesting that this might occur by 2020 he is being quite conservative; it could easily happen much sooner. Such impositions are entirely within WTO rules. We have only recently been discussing here how California intends to introduce such measures itself. In such a case, many US firms might effectively find themselves “shut out of [world] markets” because the emissions levy would appear to them as tariff making their exports less competitive against those of other nations, with the most energy or emission-intensive products being hit hardest. Some US products might also be banned outright – as 100W light bulbs already have been. He indicates that this might be based not so much on the emissions produced in the manufacturing of the capital good or product, as on those emanating from its use (again, the 100W light bulb is an obvious example). There is nothing remotely unrealistic about this; it is the way things are already moving. It is certainly questionable whether or not Europe is leading and the US lagging, on balance, but such dubious comparisons are par for the course in political lobbying. As for the trade war aspect, well, trade wars between Europe and the US are common; there are usually several going on at any time. Between the double standards of US politicians and the bureaucratic inanity of the EU, it’s a wonder that anyone bothers to trade at all!

    What Lord Stern was getting at with the “conceptual mistake” remark is probably something like this: Emissions trading schemes are, arguably, not taxation in the strict meaning of the term (eg., like income tax or corporation tax), but should be viewed either as user fees – a license permitting one to use something in common ownership (eg., like roads, or in this case, I suppose, the atmosphere) – or as a fine for polluting other people’s property. If CO2 actually were the dangerous pollutant it is alleged to be, then appropriately set carbon “taxes” would be the just payment for the negative externalities emitters wrongfully impose on other people.

    By the way, the singular of “goods” is indeed “a good”. That’s very common usage in economics.

  257. Paul Birch says:
    November 20, 2010 at 10:55 am

    I am disappointed by the decidely puerile, emotional and partisan nature of most of the comments on this thread. The remarks attributed to Lord Stern by The Times did not deserve such derision; given the background of belief in AGW, they were actually quite sensible. . . . [edit] . . .

    ————

    Paul Birch,

    I think you absolutely believe in what you say; just as Stern likewise does.

    Nick Stern (he is not my lord) is representative of a political/socio-economic group of supporters of the IPCC postulated AGW climate science; that climate science of current problematic fame. British leadership and their men, like Stern, appear susceptible to it in the current situation.

    Your point seems to be that he is a typical and well thought of member of that group.

    We knew that.

    Partisan? Old Nick proceeds to more than imply intimidation toward the USA for not supporting that group. So, if we disagree with old Nick and that group then we are partisan. At the same time you imply a high road for Nick and that group; that they are implied by you to be non-partisan. I think you think that the noble save-the-world attitude (a.k.a. corruption) of him and his group allows them to be above partisanship or conflict of interest. That doesn’t work anymore, if it ever really did. They are not.

    Emotional? Last I heard it is a natural part of the human psyche. It would seem natural to me that implying intimidation toward one’s country does tend to bring emotion out. So, does the initiation of intimidation (done soooo unemotionally/gentlemanly by Stern) require responders to be like Stern? Nah, we can just be honest in our response. Most aren’t accepting his intimidation unemotionally. : )

    Puerile? After looking up what it meant. : ) I see you are just appealing to hype while complaining about what you view as the hype of commenters here. Nice hypocritical try there; but you weakened your argument considerably by using that word.

    Old Nick made a mistake with his idea of intimidation. He emboldened the potential adversaries of the American liberal and environmental establishment . . . just what the American liberals/ enviros don’t need right now after the results of the USA midterm elections earlier this month. He give fuel to the Tea Party and, more importantly, all independents to disassociate themselves further from the American liberal and environmental establishment.

    Paul Birch, if you are a supporter of old Nick and the group like I conclude you are, then you should advise him/them to retract what he said. I personally hope he doesn’t retract it; he scored an own goal.

    John

  258. DBS [moderator], you just got yourself Quote of the Week.

    “The rank-and-file British and American citizens are allies, not enemies”.

  259. IN naval terms “stern” means rear-end.

    I guess this statement is best referred to as talking out of one’s stern.

    What a prick.

    His greatest “contribution” was the 2006 Stern Review which seems to have convinced may politicians that global warming was a business (and taxation) opportunity. This, more than anything else, seems to have converted mainstream european politicians into stalwart greenies.

    The proverbial taxing the air that we breathe had never seemed possible before.

  260. Some US products might also be banned outright – as 100W light bulbs already have been.

    What ? REAL light bulbs are still available in America ? Where can I order?

    Better mark them as “electrical space heater” on the customs declaration though.

  261. Gentlemen
    Oh Dear, let’s see. What would be the likely economic impact of Lord Stern’s threat?

    1) The U.S. would naturally turn to internal production to feed its demand.

    2) Naturally U.S. manufacturing would increase.

    3) The average Joe’s income will increase substantially; because high-skill manufacturing jobs pay very good wages.

    4) There would be a slight decrease in demand due to the higher cost of domestic goods. But, then not much more than in the mid 1960’s and this, more than likely, would be offset in by higher wages.

    5) The U.S. would have less incentive to protect Europe and Asia on the U.S. dime. So, a decrease in defense spending would produce substantially lower federal spending.

    6) Blue collar America’s attitude would be “Buy American”. While European/Asian economist might consider this behavior “irrational”; they would have a have hard time explaining this to their exporters and unemployed.

    7) Emphasis would be place on the use of the U.S.’s abundant internal resources. In particular coal – which can easily be converted to liquid fuels via coal gasification/refining.

    8) Naturally the U.S. could slap a “reverse carbon” tax on imported goods; thus increasing internal employment considerably.

    9) Likewise the U.S. could slap a “reverse carbon” tax on a food – an abundant U.S. export which Europe and Asia depend to feed their populations.

    On balance…Well… bring it on.

    Regards, Kforestcat.

  262. Roy says:
    November 20, 2010 at 10:22 am

    Don’t be quite so fast to conclude an alternate history of Germany ruling the world.

    That’s a tough call. By 1944 when the Normandy invasion took place the Manhattan Project that was begun in 1939 was only a year away from friution. That late in the program the technology was a done deal and it was just a matter of time while 130,000 people were busy at facilities around the country enriching enough fissile material. Germany wasn’t even close to getting the bomb. Had the ground invasion of Europe been delayed by a year there would have been no need for it for exactly the same reason there was no need for a ground invasion of Japan.

    You are quite right to chastise me for calling it YOUR war. I apologize for that. I meant to say it was your continent. It was our war too beginning in 1941 but the Manhattan Project itself was begun in 1939 with Berlin as the designated target.

  263. Dear Lord Stern,

    Let’s go back for a minute to 1942……

    You should not insult your friends. Sometimes they are the only ones you have.

  264. John Whitman says:
    November 20, 2010 at 11:55 am
    “I think you absolutely believe in what you say; just as Stern likewise does.”

    The objective truth of what I said does not depend upon my or anyone else’s belief. I have no idea whether or not Lord Stern believes what he says.

    “Your point seems to be that he is a typical and well thought of member of that group.”

    I have no idea whether or not he is a typical member of the group, nor whether or not he is well thought of. I have never heard of him before. My point was, as I stated, that, given belief in AGW, what he is reported as having said is quite sensible.

    “Partisan? Old Nick proceeds to more than imply intimidation toward the USA for not supporting that group.”

    Lord Stern is arguing (probably correctly) that, in the event that the US lagged behind other nations in controlling emissions, the US would be likely to find its exports subject to additional restrictions. Do you seriously imagine that these countries would simply allow their domestic policies to be vitiated by failing to apply appropriate emissions tariffs to imports from countries that lacked such emission controls? That’s not a threat; it’s a statement of the political realities and the sovereign rights of nations. It’s not hard to set a levy on imports that taxes their emissions at approximately the same rate as domestic manufactures. It will probably happen. Face it.

    It is partisan – and a double standard – to imagine that for other countries to subject imports from the US to domestic law is somehow offensive, but for the US to subject its imports from other countries to US law is magically OK.

    “At the same time you imply a high road for Nick and that group; that they are implied by you to be non-partisan.”

    I did nothing of the sort (assuming you meant “moral high ground”). However, in point of fact, I don’t think they are being partisan here. I have every reason to believe that they wish, insofar as it is practicable, to apply the same emissions standards to everyone. The “group” draws its members from all over the world, with the US contributing more than its share – including the US President himself! It is not a partisan movement, but a globalist one.

  265. ‘Lord’ Stern is a very well qualified global warming it’s all going to hell in a handcart p***k.

  266. I haven’t read all the comments, so maybe I am repeating something…

    Boston, enjoy the tea party!!

    You Americans will appreciate that!

    Peter Walsh

  267. Kforestcat says:
    November 20, 2010 at 1:19 pm
    “Gentlemen Oh Dear, let’s see. What would be the likely economic impact of Lord Stern’s threat?”

    First, it’s not a threat. Americans must be feeling really insecure to see it as such.

    Second, most Americans wouldn’t even notice (just as they don’t notice numerous other tariffs and restrictions on US trade). The US government would make some token objections, and probably subsidise some of the exports most affected (or those with the most powerful lobbies, such as the steel industry), which in turn would lead to more stringent quotas on them. But for the most part, since they are firmly in the same ideological camp, they would use it as an excuse for domestic measures to control emissions, bringing them more in line with more “progressive” international norms. They would then be able to negotiate the removal of the tariffs on a reciprocal basis.

    However, even if the US government did nothing, the effect would be limited; the mix of US exports would shift to less emission-intensive goods, with a modest economic loss both internally and externally; the dollar would fall slightly against other currencies, partly offsetting the impact of the tariff.

    That said, it’s just as likely to be the other way round, with the US imposing carbon levies on imports. It would probably be doing so already, were it not for its reliance upon China to fund its deficit. Recent anti-China rhetoric from the Obama administration suggests that it may be positioning itself to move in this direction (hoping that the drop in Chinese lending would be fully offset by the extra revenue generated).

  268. REPLY: And consider getting your own blog if you want to run one. – Anthony

    Tried. Big oil said they weren’t funding any new denier blogs until at least fiscal 2012 because of the recession. Times are tough all over.

  269. Lord Stern said that Europe and the Far East (sic) were forging ahead of the US in controlling emissions and switching to low carbon sources of energy.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Question: The Fare East? – like China and India hohohohohohohoho
    What low carbon sources of energy, how much and when will it make a significant difference?
    ——————————————————————————
    He also said – They would not tolerate having their industries undermined by American competitors that had not paid for their emissions.
    ————————————————————————-
    Question: What industries are powered by such low carbon sources and what competition do (the Europeans) present that are not already heavily subsidised?
    ——————————————————————————-
    “If you are charging properly for carbon and other people are not, you will take that into account,”
    ———————————————————————————
    Question: Charging Properly for carbon? Properly?
    ———————————————————————————
    he said. “Many of the more forward-looking people in the US are thinking about this. If they see a danger on the trade front to US exports that could influence public discussion.”
    —————————————————————————-

    Question: Forward thinking? Who can these people be? and is this some kind of threat?

    Asked what type of US products could face restrictions, Lord Stern said: “Aircraft, clearly, some cars, machine tools — it’s not simply what’s in the capital good, it’s what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating.”
    ———————————————————————————-

    Stunning such !
    Question: What aircraft do the Euros make that are not already heavily subsidised and what aircraft engines do they make that are safe these days?
    ———————————————————————————-
    Lord Stern said that a complete ban on some goods was also possible. He said the American people should overcome their historical antipathy to taxation and accept that emissions needed to be controlled either through a tax or a trading scheme.
    Lol

    Douglas

  270. Paul Birch says:
    November 20, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    John Whitman says:
    November 20, 2010 at 11:55 am

    “I think you absolutely believe in what you say; just as Stern likewise does. . . . [edit] . . .

    The objective truth of what I said does not depend upon my or anyone else’s belief. I have no idea whether or not Lord Stern believes what he says. . . . [edit] . . .

    —————–

    Paul Birch,

    First let me thank you for your considerable reply.

    My reply (November 20, 2010 at 11:55 am) to your reply (November 20, 2010 at 10:55 am) was lengthy. Likewise your subsequent reply (November 20, 2010 at 1:58 pm) was lengthy. So, let me respond one sound bite at a time over several comments addressing the multiple sound bites of our lengthy comments. This keeps the length on any given comment a little more manageable.

    My response to sound bite #1 follows.

    Paul, I must directly say that I respect you for introducing the word ‘objectivity’ into our dialog. Should we concur with a meaning of that singular word then there would be no possibility for you and I to disagree on method and premises. We could only disagree on correctness of specific applications, which is hardly any major contention at all. I look forward to the possibility of that discussion of objectivity.

    However, directly, I must say that the position of Nick is hardly a worthy subject to test the concept of objectivity on since his world view is exactly a subjective belief system (as opposed to testable science) that supports the culture around which the IPCC’s AGW bias is the focus. Also, of all the possible economic/ political / social possibilities presented in the history of Western Civilization, Nick’s authoritarian approach with a clear British style socialist slant is trivially wrong.

    If you truly are not a supporter of Nick, then I think you could see his non-objectivity clearly already.

    John

  271. The US doesn’t have much to fear Stern’s threat. In fact it’s actually humorous. The socialists and multiculturists have almost destroyed the UK. It’s like being barked at by a toothless old dog that was once a fierce power to be reckoned with but is now just happy to make a noise let alone make a move.

  272. re post: Paul Birch says: November 20, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    Do you seriously imagine that these countries would simply allow their domestic policies to be vitiated by failing to apply appropriate emissions tariffs to imports from countries that lacked such emission controls? That’s not a threat; it’s a statement of the political realities and the sovereign rights of nations. It’s not hard to set a levy on imports that taxes their emissions at approximately the same rate as domestic manufactures. It will probably happen. Face it.

    I find it really hard to believe that you are serious. This is going on like mad right now. The US has tremendously more restrictive emission controls, expensive emission controls, than countries such as China and India – and yet we buy their products like mad, mostly without tarrifs that would even begin to make up for the cost differences imposed by our emission controls, or, for that matter, wage and labor controls. So I know full well that CO2 tarrifs are being bandied about left and right and some believe it only ‘fair,’ for someone to ask if anyone could seriously imagine countries allowing themselves to be undercut by not applying emission tarrifs, when that situation is occurring right now and has been for decades….. well… watts up with that??!!??

  273. Paul Birch said:

    Lord Stern is arguing (probably correctly) that, in the event that the US lagged behind other nations in controlling emissions, the US would be likely to find its exports subject to additional restrictions. Do you seriously imagine that these countries would simply allow their domestic policies to be vitiated by failing to apply appropriate emissions tariffs to imports from countries that lacked such emission controls? That’s not a threat; it’s a statement of the political realities and the sovereign rights of nations. It’s not hard to set a levy on imports that taxes their emissions at approximately the same rate as domestic manufactures. It will probably happen. Face it.

    I think that the only thing that is inevitable at this stage is that more governments will back away from this emissions tariffs bullshit … it’s funny to see the Labor party in Australia pretending to have an emissions trading scheme to keep the Greens happy while delaying its introduction in an effort to avoid being kicked out in the next election (or before).

  274. All this talk of tariffs recalls the Smoot-Hawley fiasco, in which one country would raise tariffs, and the next country would retaliate. Before long, world trade was choked off, and everyone naturally became poorer as a result.

    This is the beginning of Smoot-Hawley 2.0

  275. Lord Stern is bucking for highest-qualified nincompoop, isn’t he?
    Hang on… what do you mean he’s not the official Court Jester in HM’s Court?

    Stern’s thesis gets an “F” but he still manages to get a doctorate from the (formerly venerable) TU Berlin. Perhaps the Berliners are counting on harnessing the energy of deceased alumni and professors (like Ertl, Coanda, Hertz, Dornberger, Junkers, Reuleaux, Schinkel and Zuse) spinning in their graves at the thought of a fool like Stern being honoured with a doctorate.

  276. John Whitman says:
    November 20, 2010 at 5:02 pm
    Paul Birch says: The objective truth of what I said does not depend upon my or anyone else’s belief. I have no idea whether or not Lord Stern believes what he says. . . . [edit] . . .

    “Paul, I must directly say that I respect you for introducing the word ‘objectivity’ into our dialog. … If you truly are not a supporter of Nick, then I think you could see his non-objectivity clearly already.”

    I did not use the word “objectivity”. I used the phrase “objective truth”. I did not claim that Lord Stern was objective. I pointed out that the objective truth of a statement does not depend upon anyone’s belief (except, of course, when it’s a statement about someone’s belief). Whether emissions tariffs are introduced does not ultimately depend upon the truth or falsity of AGW, or even in anyone’s belief in it. They are likely to come about as a source of government revenue irrespective of the ecobabble used to “justify” them. Those countries that fail to introduce them internally are likely to see them imposed on their exports to countries that do.

  277. Rational Debate says:
    November 20, 2010 at 5:12 pm
    “I find it really hard to believe that you are serious. This is going on like mad right now. The US has tremendously more restrictive emission controls, expensive emission controls, than countries such as China and India – and yet we buy their products like mad… ”

    There is a difference between trade with the third world and trade within the developed world. Poor countries are seldom held to the same standards as rich countries. China and India may get a pass for a while, but not the US. Moreover, as I pointed out, as China becomes wealthier, and the pressure to improve its standards becomes stronger, western politicians are increasingly moving in the direction of measures to restrict or tax Chinese imports. Under WTO rules, crude protectionism is barred, but emissions levies and eco-regulations are not, so they will be used even where the main motives are protectionist.

  278. Paul Birch says:
    November 21, 2010 at 3:24 am

    I did not use the word “objectivity”. I used the phrase “objective truth”. I did not claim that Lord Stern was objective. I pointed out that the objective truth of a statement does not depend upon anyone’s belief (except, of course, when it’s a statement about someone’s belief). Whether emissions tariffs are introduced does not ultimately depend upon the truth or falsity of AGW, or even in anyone’s belief in it. They are likely to come about as a source of government revenue irrespective of the ecobabble used to “justify” them. Those countries that fail to introduce them internally are likely to see them imposed on their exports to countries that do.

    ——–

    Paul Birch,

    It is enjoyable to continue the dialog.

    Regarding objectivity versus objective truth, I think we are agreeing there is objective knowledge. Let me know if I an incorrect.

    Regarding the motive for government interventionist economic policies involving domestic or international trade, which subjective motive do we pick from? Nick first drove the AGW one, but it ran out of gas (pun intended). Now you seem to indicate that he can objectively switch to another subjective motive; one of maintaining the status quo of existing government sponsored cartels formed for emission control by some groups of countries. His motive is now just to protect the cartels against independent countries, which is just arbitrary protectionism.

    What rationally could be the basis for his switching of motives? Well, failure. Nick needs to keep trying motives until he gets one that is successful to win support his arbitrary protectionist goals. I think that looks like the behavior of the Pragmatist philosophical view of socio-economics. Pragmatism explicitly rejects objectivity. Pragmatism says let’s try great social and economic experiments forced by government majority rule; keep endlessly doing it until there is achievement of the paradise of the greatest common good. Nick has a losing strategy here, that stuff failed big time in the 20th century . . . . and he wants to do it again.

    John

  279. Paul Birch says:
    November 21, 2010 at 3:43 am

    “Under WTO rules, crude protectionism is barred, but emissions levies and eco-regulations are not, so they will be used even where the main motives are protectionist.”

    True. It falls under the same (lack of) WTO framework on labor laws. A country which has labor laws allowing the workforce to be exploited enjoys a competitive advantage over countries which have more restrictive labor laws.

    Typically what happens when this kind of protectionism takes place is that aggrieved party gets a free pass to impose retaliatory tarrifs of any kind that may contravene negotiated trade agreements so long as those retaliatory tarrifs do not exceed the tarrif on the other side which inspired the retaliation.

    And there’s nothing at all that the WTO can do to stop grassroots boycotts where imported products suffer simply because the buyers choose not to buy the products from that exporter. In this day and age of almost cost-free instantaneous information dispersal to the general public I expect the US response to any trade measures that Stern managed to drum up would be a grassroots boycott of products coming from the source of the eco-protectionist tarrifs. A lot of innocent parties at the source would suffer for it by guilt through association. Stern threatens to create a very ugly situation that few people on either side of the pond want to see happen.

  280. Paul Birch says:
    November 21, 2010 at 3:43 am

    “There is a difference between trade with the third world and trade within the developed world. Poor countries are seldom held to the same standards as rich countries. China and India may get a pass for a while, but not the US. ”

    That would seem to fly in the face of WTO most-favored-nation principle:

    Most-favored-nation treatment says that WTO members must grant the same advantage (such as a lower tariff) to all members as that given to other WTO members.

  281. John Whitman says:
    November 21, 2010 at 6:01 am
    “Regarding the motive for government interventionist economic policies involving domestic or international trade, which subjective motive do we pick from?”

    Strictly speaking, a government does not have a motive, because it is not a person. This isn’t just a quibble; it’s important to realise that different people within the government will have different motives; the mix of motives will change over time, as different groups become more or less influential. Thus there will be environmentalists who more-or-less genuinely believe in the perils of AGW; there will be opportunists in it for the buck; pragmatists swimming with the tide; and ideological socialists for whom it is a wonderful opportunity. I do not know which – if any – of these categories Lord Stern falls into.

    “Nick first drove the AGW one, but it ran out of gas (pun intended).”

    A lot of sceptics seem to be pushing this idea lately, but I’m afraid I don’t buy it. From where I sit, the AGW juggernaut has not run out of gas. Since it has never depended either upon public opinion or on scientific evidence, it is still ploughing on regardless. I’ll believe it’s on the retreat when windfarms and grid-tied solar panels stop sprouting up all over the place, or are required to maintain sufficient energy storage to supply baseload power; when I can once again buy traditional incandescent light bulbs in the shops; and when I can watch the telly without the obligatory global warning propaganda in every other programme.

  282. It would appear on the face of it Stern’s proposal is no different than choosing any other arbitrarily selected injustice not covered by WTO. For instance what if the U.S. tallied up its defense spending and compared it to other NATO members and found it was unfair and then started imposing special tarriffs on those members for anything they provide that is used by DoD and civilian defense contractors. And then we give some poor NATO members like our wonderful friends that used to be pieces of the former Soviet Union a break and not impose those same tariffs on those guys – just the “developed” NATA members and note that we reserve the right to define “developed” any way we want.

    Or lets compare how much we spend per capita on health care amongst the “developed” nations. People rag on US healthcare all the time but as a percentage of gross national product the U.S. spends almost twice as much per capita on health care as anywhere else and as a general rule you get what you pay for. So lets say the U.S. decides “rich” trade partners in “developed” nations who spend less percentage of GDP on health care is an unfair advantage. So we slap tarrifs on all imports of health-related products and services that come from trade partners who we think should be able to devote more of its GDP on providing health care.

    That’s really what Stern’s case boils down to – the U.S. is not devoting enough GDP to implement someone else’s idea of appropriate energy-use policy.

    Wow. All I can say to that is TFB. Who do these people think they are?

  283. Dave Springer says:
    November 21, 2010 at 6:52 am
    “And there’s nothing at all that the WTO can do to stop grassroots boycotts where imported products suffer simply because the buyers choose not to buy the products from that exporter. In this day and age of almost cost-free instantaneous information dispersal to the general public I expect the US response to any trade measures that Stern managed to drum up would be a grassroots boycott of products coming from the source of the eco-protectionist tarrifs. A lot of innocent parties at the source would suffer for it by guilt through association. Stern threatens to create a very ugly situation that few people on either side of the pond want to see happen.”

    So-called grassroots boycotts are nine-day wonders with almost no real impact. Very few consumers bother to check where the goods they buy come from, and fewer still would remember – or be willing – to boycott them on political grounds. Companies are even less likely to abide such nonsense in their hard purchasing decisions, as distinct from their pandering press releases. Any effect is likely to be negated, or even reversed, by those who disagree with the boycott, and may actually purchase more of the goods in consequence. Here, for example, greens would in general tend to favour emissions tariffs, so are most unlikely to join a boycott against countries imposing them. There is very limited scope for such boycotts anyway; I for one would be hard pressed to find any US goods in my shopping basket to boycott. Orange juice, maybe. That’s about it. I doubt whether American shoppers buy many UK goods either.

    Lord Stern is stating what is likely to occur in the future; he is not “drumming up” or threatening any trade sanctions, which would be drawn up and implemented by national governments or the European Commission, where he would have no input. If he has any particular goal here it is probably to keep the US government on side, by warning what may happen if it allows its resolve to weaken. It is unlikely that he cares one way or another for the opinion of the American (or British) people.

    As I’ve mentioned before, trade wars between Europe and the US are no big deal; they’re going on all the time.

  284. Dave Springer says:
    November 21, 2010 at 7:00 am
    “Most-favored-nation treatment says that WTO members must grant the same advantage (such as a lower tariff) to all members as that given to other WTO members.”

    Import duties levied in lieu of emissions charges in the country of origin would not constitute discriminatory tariffs under WTO regime (so long as the duty did not exceed the equivalent duties payable by domestic producers).

  285. Dave Springer says:
    November 21, 2010 at 8:14 am
    “It would appear on the face of it Stern’s proposal”

    He hasn’t made any proposal.

    “… For instance what if the U.S. … [and] … slap tarrifs on all imports of health-related products and services that come from trade partners who we think should be able to devote more of its GDP on providing health care …”

    This is just how the US does behave. Within its own territory, it has that right. By the same token, other countries have the right to require imports from the US (or elsewhere) meet their requirements, however arbitrary you may think those requirements are.

  286. Paul Birch said:

    This is just how the US does behave. Within its own territory, it has that right. By the same token, other countries have the right to require imports from the US (or elsewhere) meet their requirements, however arbitrary you may think those requirements are.

    Well, of course they can. However, if they have no realistic alternatives then they are a bit stuffed eh?

    Kind of like the A400M that the British and the Froggies are developing. Much more expensive than the C-17 and less capable.

    Of course, I have no problems if you guys want to spend your money like that. Means that there is less for other, more essential things, like fuel during winter, grain, etc.

  287. Paul Birch says:
    November 21, 2010 at 8:20 am

    ” If he has any particular goal here it is probably to keep the US government on side, by warning what may happen if it allows its resolve to weaken.”

    European Political figures rarely consider the fact that 80% of US Citizens do not hold passports.

    Threatening or warning of a future trade war does nothing to keep US politicians/government on side, as US public opinion has always been decidedly isolationist.

    He really should look at how much US public support there is for the US to withdraw from GATT and NAFTA.

    He might also consider what percentage of FTSE market capitalization BP represents.
    At some point the US Government will have to decide an appropriate level of fines for the ‘oops’ in the Gulf of Mexico. Without strong support from various US Government officials the appropriate level of fines could easily exceed BP’s total worth.

    As others have said, Lord Stern is nothing but a loud mouth fool. No responsible British Politician would threaten the US with anything when the very existence of one it’s largest corporations is predicated on the Good Will of US Officials.

  288. Paul

    With regard to your Nov 20, 2010 @ 1.19 pm comment.

    I disagree with your view that Lord Sterns comment’s are not intended to be a “threat”. I suppose one could argue Lord Stern’s comments are simply a “view” or an “argument”. I did consider the word “threat” carefully before I wrote it. However, taken in total, Lord Stern’s comments were politically motivated and were intended to create a general “fear of retaliation”. Stern’s clear intent, from my point of view, is to propose a course of action as “veiled threat”. Incidentally, I am not feeling particularly “insecure” by Stern’s comments. To the contrary, I’m 99.99% confident Lord Stern’s proposed course of actions would fail miserably.

    The point of my comment was precisely that Lord Stern’s argument is absurd. The United States simply isn’t venerable to intimidation and, if pushed, would likely thrive in “isolation”.

    I do not advocate trade wars; but, I do believe a trade war will be provoked if Stern-like politicos go down that road. I believe it’s a bit absurd to suggest “most Americans wouldn’t even notice ” if Europe we to slap a CO2 tariff on the U.S. I would respectfully submit American’s would “notice” and the response would be ugly.

    Europe’s socialists have a good deal of difficulty understanding the average American simply isn’t enamored with Europe’s socialist views. Quite candidly, most American’s couldn’t care less if they were to be ostracized by the European left. Indeed the average American would likely to derive a good deal of pleasure from that fact.

    While it is true the American left in the Democratic party occasionally suffers from “pangs of guilt”, they depend upon the average American’s vote to satisfy those “pangs”.

    Trouble is… radicals in the Democratic party did promote the “AGW” fraud with considerable funding, political cover, and corporate subsidy to “green” company’s. The extent of this corruption is being rapidly uncovered in key U.S. and British Institutions. Blue collar America has little tolerance for policy by fraud and isn’t particularly prone to feeling “guilty” about artificially created social issues. Nor are they particularly enamored with back-door “economic” regulation initiated by unelected bureaucrats. This underlining philosophy of independence can be found in the vast expanse of “moderates” on both America’s political left and right.

    In summary, my view is a trade war will be provoked should Europe’s leftist go to the extreme’s proposed by Lord Stern. You have proposed an alternative outcome. Some movement in the direction(s) you proposed are likely under the current president or in leftist California. But, in my judgment, that movement has a short shelf-life and limited scope — likely no more than two years and not extending much beyond the Obama/Moon Beam administrations.

    Given the current political environment in the United States as a whole, coupled with the world economic situation and average U.S. citizens strong/growing skepticism of AGW theory, I believe your proposed outcome is highly problematic in the long run.

    You are right to suggest that a strongly held beliefs in “AGW” could lead to internal pressures to “boycott” American goods in some countries. Lord Stern’s statement is such an example. However, serious foreign policy tends to recognize where countries have unrecognizable differences of opinion and where internal polictical divisions would make a carefully crafted foreign policy unsustainable. Generally, considerable diplomatic efforts are made to prevent these differences into erupting into wars or trade wars. This is one such situation.

    In the end we simply have opposing subjective views. I leave it to the individual reader’s to gauge the merits of our individual arguments.

    Regards, Kforestcat.

  289. I would prefer that the UK gave up their support for AGW then the USA gave up their resistance to it,it is nonsense.The money that the UK is spending trying to cut emissions is totally wasted hopefully those that are pressing these cuts will not remain long enough to put their plans of world domination into action.

  290. Richard Sharpe says:
    November 21, 2010 at 8:59 am
    “Well, of course they can. However, if they have no realistic alternatives then they are a bit stuffed eh?”

    Don’t be foolish. If there were no realistic alternative then purchasers would simply pay the higher price. In practice, though, there are always alternatives.

  291. 1) The USA has all the resources it needs to make anything it wants to have. We don’t need them.

    2) Tit for Tat. The ROW will be hurt far more by a US ban on them.

    3) Lets just say the EU *does* do something wacky like this. How about they get to pick up the 10% or so of their economy that is Self Defense that they currently leach off of the USA…

    4) Frankly, I can think of little that would make the US economy boom faster than a trade ban with the Loony AGW countries. We would finally start using our coal for loads of cheap productivity unhindered by their guilt trip and we’d make about 2 x as much “stuff” per unit effort as they do. We’d prosper as they choke in their own taxation cesspool. Ford and GM sales would soar with Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda, etc. all on the ‘no import’ list. US Steel would flourish with international competitors on the ropes. Works for me. Oh, and they can try to figure out how to keep on having “business as usual” with no Cisco Routers, HP computers, IBM consulting, Sun Servers, Oracle software, iPods, iPads, iPhones, et.al. Oh, and a short stint without any Intel chips will likely awaken them “right quick”…

    5) Such a ‘ban’ was proposed for South Africa during the Arab Oil Embargo years (when they wouldn’t ‘play nice’ on the racial issues with the EU.) The net result was that South Africa became energy independent using FT Coal to Oil processes and had their domestic industries thrive.

    So, IMHO, I say: “Bring it on! Please!!” Anything that helps break the back of this notion that “one size fits all” when it comes to government is a Very Good Thing.

    That it would finally get us off our butts and building new industries would just be icing on the cake.

    (Oh, and EU, hope you don’t mind not getting any of those really really neat military toys we make…. I’m sure Russia will be your friend. For a price…)

  292. harrywr2 says:
    November 21, 2010 at 11:00 am

    “Threatening or warning of a future trade war does nothing to keep US politicians/government on side, as US public opinion has always been decidedly isolationist.”

    US opinion has always swung wildly between isolationism and interventionism. However, since the political establishment is firmly globalist (whether they call themselves Republican or Democrat) the US government is unlikely to pay much attention to public opinion, beyond seeing how they need to spin their policies.

    “He might also consider what percentage of FTSE market capitalization BP represents.”

    BP is not a British firm. It’s a multinational. I understand that its biggest shareholders are US pension funds, and that most of its employees are Americans.

    “Without strong support from various US Government officials the appropriate level of fines could easily exceed BP’s total worth.”

    Unlikely, because in the face of such unjustly punitive action BP could then simply abandon its US assets and continue to do profitable business in the rest of the world. Shareholders in other countries would probably take out injunctions prohibiting the company from making any payments to the US. There would be numerous legal actions against the US government. Other oil companies would consider the US too risky and stop investing there. So Americans would be the ones to suffer most.

  293. E.M.Smith says:
    November 21, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    “(Oh, and EU, hope you don’t mind not getting any of those really really neat military toys we make…. I’m sure Russia will be your friend. For a price…)”

    At least we’ll have manned spaceflight. ;-)

  294. R. de Haan says:
    November 19, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Lord Stern must be afraid that Great Britain’s Green suicide program will bankrupt the country before the US.
    See:Britain’s Trillion Pound Horror Story 01 = it could be the USA,THE ENTIRE EU, NEW ZEALAND, CANADA, AUSTRALIA ETC…. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PATH!

    I Just finished watching this video and realized the whole western world is rotting with the effects of bigger and bigger government, taxes and spending. I don’t care what country you live you will identify with what is going on in this video, just substute your counrty for instead of the UK. We all suffer with ever growing governments and public sector growth all modeled on each other!
    PLEASE see the video through for the answer and the fix thats needed, it is doable but needs to change the socialist elite ideas.

  295. Dave Springer says:
    November 20, 2010 at 8:02 am

    James Sexton says:
    November 19, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    “The people you mentioned, have relatively very little tangible value. Most of their wealth is tied to the value of the market shares of their respective companies.”

    “Michael Dell owns or controls 221 million shares of Dell stock which at $14/sh is about $3 billion. His net worth is estimated at $14 billion. He is well diversified in his investment portfolio and has been for many years. Hopefully you’re not in the habit in making things up out of thin air but you certainly did in this case.”
    =======================================================
    Way to entirely miss my point, about intrinsic value and inferred value. BTW, Gates and Buffet are also diversified. It doesn’t matter a whit to the point I was making. They can be diversified across the board on all markets and will still have inferred value as opposed to real. I didn’t “make thing up” in any manner, it is simply that your reading comprehension skills are below par. Try again Sparky.

  296. Kforestcat says:
    November 21, 2010 at 11:39 am
    “I disagree with your view that Lord Sterns comment’s are not intended to be a “threat”.”

    He wasn’t “commenting”, he was being interviewed, and consequently saying what he thought in answer to the interviewer’s questions (or, possibly, what he wanted his audience of British newspaper readers – not Americans – to think he thought). It is silly to pretend that this is a deliberate threat against the US when it is purchasers within the EU who would have to pay any emissions levy on imports.

    “To the contrary, I’m 99.99% confident Lord Stern’s proposed course of actions would fail miserably”

    He did not propose any course of action. He explained what is politically probable. If you imagine that the EU would be unable to introduce emissions import tariffs successfully you are living in a fantasy world.

    “The point of my comment was precisely that Lord Stern’s argument is absurd. The United States simply isn’t venerable to intimidation and, if pushed, would likely thrive in “isolation”.”

    The US is not being “intimidated”, and it would not be “isolated”. It would continue to import and export with only slightly reduced volume overall, but with a lower dollar exchange rate and with its “dirtier” industries unable to compete effectively on the world market without subsidy.

    “I believe it’s a bit absurd to suggest “most Americans wouldn’t even notice ” if Europe we to slap a CO2 tariff on the U.S. I would respectfully submit American’s would “notice” and the response would be ugly.”

    And yet you haven’t noticed that this has already happened. There are already environment/emissions taxes that US firms have to pay to the UK government if they wish to operate into the UK.

    “Europe’s socialists have a good deal of difficulty understanding the average American simply isn’t enamored with Europe’s socialist views.”

    Perhaps because they can see the average American voting for socialism left, right and centre. Perhaps because they can see what Americans stubbornly refuse to face; that the US is a socialist state no less than the EU.

    “You are right to suggest that a strongly held beliefs in “AGW” could lead to internal pressures to “boycott” American goods in some countries. Lord Stern’s statement is such an example.”

    That’s not what I said (and not what Lord Stern said either). Are you perhaps confusing the title of the WUWT post with something Lord Stern said? There is no question of US goods being either banned or boycotted (except for particular products that might not meet regulatory requirements – like the 100W light bulbs). They would simply be subjected to a levy. In any case, there are practically no US imports for consumers to boycott, even if we wanted to (which we wouldn’t). I was pointing out that, in the event of a “grassroots boycott” of EU products by American consumers as “retaliation” for an emissions tariff on US exports to the EU, American greens would oppose such a boycott, and might well increase their purchasers of EU goods. Such boycotts are almost totally ineffective.

    “However, serious foreign policy tends to recognize where countries have unrecognizable differences of opinion …. This is one such situation.”

    But it isn’t. The stance of the American and European political establishments is almost identical. They make slightly different noises in public, that’s all.

  297. John Whitman says:
    November 20, 2010 at 11:55 am

    “…Paul Birch,

    I think you absolutely believe in what you say; just as Stern likewise does….”

    Stern believe in MONEY!
    Stern was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003. Richard Stern, former Vice-President, World Bank is his brother.

    Remember this story??? Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak

    “…The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions….”

    I suggest you look at the historic results of the World Bank/IMF control of third world countries. It is no wonder they had fits!

    Mr. Budhoo’s Bombshell:
    Summer 1995
    “Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal. “

    More on why third world countries hate the World Bank:
    “SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk. So SAPs hurt the poor most…

    By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result.

    The term “Structural Adjustment Program” has gained such a negative connotation that the World Bank and IMF launched a new initiative, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Initiative, and makes countries develop Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP). While the name has changed, with PRSPs, the World Bank is still forcing countries to adopt the same types of policies as SAPs…..” http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html

    Now what was this about MR. Stern being concerned about humanity and the world, aside from treating it as a cash cow that is.

  298. There are many citizens in the UK who are so fearful of CO2 emissions that they write to the Sunday newspapers advocating that CO2 should be scrubbed from the atmosphere using ‘geo-engineering technology’. This hysteria concerning CO2 has been created by Stern but I don’t think even he (being some kind of economist) would be daft enough to dream up something as ridiculous as this – Prince Charles might though.

  299. R Stevenson says:
    November 22, 2010 at 8:55 am
    “There are many citizens in the UK who are so fearful of CO2 emissions that they write to the Sunday newspapers advocating that CO2 should be scrubbed from the atmosphere using ‘geo-engineering technology’. This hysteria concerning CO2 has been created by Stern but I don’t think even he (being some kind of economist) would be daft enough to dream up something as ridiculous as this – Prince Charles might though.”

    What is it that you contending is “ridiculous”? Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere? In the long term that is probably how we will get most of the CO2 we will use for manufacturing hydrocarbon fuels and other organics. The enegy costs for the extraction process would be modest (relative to the energy content of the fuels subsequently manufactured), the raw material is available in unlimited quantities, and clean and consistent in quality, and any convenient source of primary energy ( eg., fission, fusion, deep geothermal, wind, tidal, hydro, ocean thermal, solar voltaic or thermal, solar power satellites, gravitational, atmospheric or magnetospheric electricity) could be employed. A marine structure of intake area ~30km2 would be required to process sufficient air to produce enough fuel to match current world energy consumption (or, including another 30km2 exhausting the depleted air, around 100km2 in all, ~1/5000 of the world’s urban areas to be supplied, and a minute fraction of the available space offshore). The main by-product would be some 10^12 cubic metres of fresh water per annum, enough for ~30 billion people.

  300. Gail Combs says:
    November 22, 2010 at 8:14 am

    John Whitman says:
    November 20, 2010 at 11:55 am

    “…Paul Birch,

    I think you absolutely believe in what you say; just as Stern likewise does….”

    Now what was this about MR. Stern being concerned about humanity and the world, aside from treating it as a cash cow that is.

    ————-

    Gail Combs,

    Your point is well made.

    I stand corrected and I change my statement to: “I think you (Paul Birch) absolutely believe in what you say; but Stern is grabbing for the gold….”

    Thanks, Gail.

    John

  301. I would like to quote a great American, Harry Callahan:

    “I know what you’re thinking. ‘Did he fire six shots or only five?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?

    And in another situation:

    “Go ahead, make my day. “

  302. Back in the old days, we used to warm a brick on top of the wood stove and then wrap it in a towel to warm our beds. Well, the temp is going to dip down into the negative double digits over the next three days and I will be in that same cold house I lived in as a little girl. So Paul, if you don’t mind, keep talking. All that hot air is warming up my puter enough that I can use it instead of a bulky brick. And while you’re at it, you might mention to all those CO2 molecules floating in the air that I would like some greenhouse gas heat sent my way. Tell them to show up Wednesday. It will be sunny and the temp is expected to rise to a scorching…

    9 degrees.

  303. Paul Birch says:
    November 22, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    When nanotechnology is further along I figure atmospheric CO2 will quickly become a limiting factor and the EPA will have to think about how to limit how much is sequestered instead of how much is emitted lest so much carbin is removed from the atmosphere to make durable goods that we have to worry about global cooling and plant growth rate falling precipitously. I suspect one day, probably within the lifetime of my children if no my own, we’ll be thankful for every PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere and be wishing we had more.

  304. James Sexton says:
    November 19, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    “The people you mentioned, have relatively very little tangible value. Most of their wealth is tied to the value of the market shares of their respective companies.”

    Incredible. Demonstrably wrong and you fail to concede and remain in denial. Get a clue, dummy.

  305. @Jame Sexton

    Just to further demonstrate how wrong this is:

    “The people you mentioned, have relatively very little tangible value. Most of their wealth is tied to the value of the market shares of their respective companies.”

    Let’s go here:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=DELL+Key+Statistics

    And scroll on down to where we find book value per share: $3.17.

    In case you don’t know what book value is then it’s the audited value of the company if it were liquidated and is a very important financial metric in some cases for investors. Book value is what the company is worth if everything tangible is sold and all debts are paid off. It’s what an investor should get back if the company goes belly up.

    Mike Dell owns 221 million shares of Dell which at liquidation would be worth about $600 million. And Dell is only 20% of his portfolio. The book value of other companies he owns is likely substantially higher as a percentage of market value as Dell is a very lean organization with little inventory at any one time.

    The others you mentioned also have diversified portfolios and have substantial ownership in tangible things owned by the companies they own. And that doesn’t count personal property they own like homes, cars, aircraft, yachts, art, jewelry, and things of that nature.

    You were monumentally wrong in that claim. I have no idea what the monumentally stupid source of it was but not admitting it is wrong only makes you look worse.

  306. Dave Springer says:
    November 23, 2010 at 8:18 am
    “When nanotechnology is further along I figure atmospheric CO2 will quickly become a limiting factor and the EPA will have to think about how to limit how much is sequestered instead of how much is emitted lest so much carbin is removed from the atmosphere to make durable goods that we have to worry about global cooling and plant growth rate falling precipitously.”

    Extracting CO2 for fuel manufacture (or for organics that bio-degrade or are incinerated after use) would make no difference to the atmospheric concentration. I’m afraid I don’t understand what you think nanotechnology has to do with it.

    An alternative source to the atmosphere might be the deep oceans. An artificial upwelling created by pumping compressed air down through pipes, making bubbles for buoyancy, would cause excess CO2 to fizz out of solution to be captured at the surface. This is somewhat dependent upon available CO2 concentrations at depth (which do not seem to be well understood at present), but could conveniently be combined with ocean thermal power generation; under some reasonable assumptions, the amount of power generated could approximate that required to reduce the CO2 (& H2O) to hydrocarbons.

  307. Paul Birch

    I don’t know whether you have ever tried designing a srubber for removing very low concentrations of solute gas – from what you say’ I think not. The scrubber would be enormous and so would be the energy costs in blowing huge volumes of air through it.
    Learn a little more about mass transfer systems with extremely low concentration driving forces before formulating hair brain extraction schemes for CO2.

  308. Paul Birch

    Then you have to strip the absorbed CO2 from huge volumes of scrubbing medium which you suggest is sea water – the pumping costs would be enormous in energy terms. You seem to have given very little thought to the huge energy costs involved that is why the idea is ridiculous.

  309. Robert Stevenson says:
    November 23, 2010 at 11:10 am
    “I don’t know whether you have ever tried designing a srubber for removing very low concentrations of solute gas – from what you say’ I think not. The scrubber would be enormous and so would be the energy costs in blowing huge volumes of air through it. Learn a little more about mass transfer systems with extremely low concentration driving forces before formulating hair brain extraction schemes for CO2.”

    There is very little scrubbing required (beyond that which happens automatically as a side-product of the lift mechanism) because the water from the ocean depths can be expected to be supersaturated in CO2 once the pressure is reduced towards atmospheric. It will fizz, like a bottle of pop. This is why, as I stated, the process is dependent upon the presence of a sufficient concentration at depth, which may not be available in all locations, but probably is in at least some.

    The energy cost is quite low, because although the water has to be lifted by up to 10km, the density difference between the top and bottom due to the temperature difference is small (equivalent to a head of only ~20m). There is also a density difference due to the pressure, but that does not require energy to overcome, since it’s a closed loop. The full 200kJ/m3 would be required only if there were no effervescence at all. In practice, once the CO2 starts outgassing, this will reduce the density of the water/gas mixture enough to lift the water the rest of the way, and increase the suction on the bottom part of the jet. The amount of additional air (or other convenient gas – hydrogen would have some significant advantages due to its low density) employed to maintain the upwelling would be correspondingly reduced. If the CO2 concentration were sufficiently high (at the bottom of an ocean trench) we would have to be careful not to induce runaway overturn – which could potentially increase global CO2 concentrations by up to ~10,000ppm in one go! Overall collection energy would probably be of order 100kJ/kgCO2, small compared to the reduction energy of about 10MJ/kgCO2, or the energy that could simultaneously be extracted from the temperature difference between the surface and bottom water (~100MJ/m3 x 5% ~10MJ/kgCO2 for a volumetric absorption factor of unity referred to 1 bar). As previously noted, actual concentrations are not well known. In some cases, if CO2 clathrates and/or liquid CO2 are present the effective concentration may be absurdly – indeed, dangerously – high, approaching a thousand volumes.

  310. The best “scrubbers ” of CO2 are plants. Let’s just plant some trees and gardens near these “dirty” American (and Canadian, Chinese, Brazilian, etc.) factories. That should take care of the problem.

    In the meanwhile, countries like England and the rest of the EU collective will tax themselves into a Pre-Industrial Age.

  311. @ Robert Stevenson:

    Re-reading your two recent comments, it seems that you may be conflating the two quite distinct extraction techniques (from the atmosphere, and from the ocean depths). Seawater is not employed in the former. In case the first comment does refer to atmospheric extraction, I will add this:

    Intake velocities of ~100m/s are reduced by directing the flow into a sheaf of wedge-shaped channelss (like this, ^^^^^, but with an much smaller opening angle ~6 degrees), then again into similar smaller wedges opening from the sides of the first, oriented at right angles to the first. Each can reduce the speed by a factor of 10 or more, with minimal loss. The two-stage reduction to ~1m/s should be sufficient, but extra stages can be added if desired. Ammonia (and, if the air is too dry, some water) is sprayed in before the first or second stage of the diffuser (to get good mixing). This grabs the CO2 fast. Aqueous ammonium bicarbonate is then deposited onto a hydrophilic mesh and drained off. There is a low-ratio expander ahead of the mesh, and compressor after (or alternatively a pair of heat exchangers), to drop the temperature by ~30K to remove most of the water vapour and practically all the unreacted ammonia/ammonium bicarbonate. Passage through the mesh at ~1m/s only costs ~1kJ/kgCO2. Likewise for the heat exchangers. The depleted dry air passes through reverse diffusers to accelerate it back up to ~100m/s for passage through the exhaust turbine.

    Ammonia is chosen because it can be made on-site in unlimited quantities by the Haber process, using nitrogen and water from the air. The small fraction that escapes is even less of a pollutant than CO2, actually helping to fertilise the land downwind.

  312. I should point out that a two-stage diffuser may not be necessary. A single stage (~1m mouth x 100m long) could do the whole velocity ratio in one go, with the fine structure of the diffuser wall (through which the flow passes) also acting as a heat exchanger, possibly with the ammonia doubling as the coolant. With curved vanes ~1mm apart, the wall would be a few centimeters thick; ditto for the exhaust diffuser (whose wedges would interdigitate the intake wedges, doing the same thing in reverse); then at the core of the sandwich is the hydrophilic mesh. Say 5cm “dead” space, so the useful part of the diffuser starts 5m in from the mouth (that would actually mean a 180:1 velocity ratio). The main cooling load is actually the latent heat of water condensed from the air (~20kJ/m3air or 40MJ/kgCO2), because there’s a lot more water vapour than CO2. Fortunately, it can be pumped across to be dumped into the exhaust stream at a temperature only ~20K higher, so the primary energy required for the heat pump is only ~3MJ/kgCO2 (this could be reduced almost to zero if the waste heat were dumped into the ocean). The cooling load can also be reduced by placing the intake vents at high altitude (~5km), where the absolute humidity is considerably lower, at a cost of producing correspondingly less fresh water.

  313. Paul, you must be joking. Ammonia is less polluting than CO2? Ever tried spreading Ammonia fertilizer on a windy day? You DON’T want to be downwind. When you work with that type of fertilizer, you suit up. However, applying CO2 would be completely unnoticeable to anyone at the site and downwind. And the humans spreading it could walk around in it unharmed.

  314. Pamela Gray says:
    November 24, 2010 at 6:53 am
    “Paul, you must be joking. Ammonia is less polluting than CO2? Ever tried spreading Ammonia fertilizer on a windy day? You DON’T want to be downwind. When you work with that type of fertilizer, you suit up. However, applying CO2 would be completely unnoticeable to anyone at the site and downwind. And the humans spreading it could walk around in it unharmed.”

    Have you never heard the expression “the poison is in the dose”? Dusting crops with ammonium nitrate fertiliser is very different from allowing traces of ammonia gas at very low concentrations (a few ppm) to escape into the upper troposphere, whence, after mixing with unprocessed air, it will soon rain out (at even lower concentrations) very slightly buffering the rainwater’s natural CO2 and NOx acidity.

  315. Paul Birch

    Having extracted your CO2 from the atmosphere what miraculous low energy reaction system do you propose for reducing CO2/H2O to produce the hydrcarbon fuels with its huge payback in energy terms?

    Incidentally water from the ocean depths would not be supersaturated with CO2 but would contain chemically combined CO2 in the form of carbonates.

  316. Paul Birch

    You seem to have given this scheme (CO2/H2O => hydrocarbon fuels) a great deal of thought. Have you considered what the flowsheet would look like and what would a) be the capital cost of a full scale plant to absorb/desorb atmospheric CO2 and b) the operating costs?
    Similarly capital and operating costs for the plant to reduce CO2/H2O to the hydrocabon

  317. R Stevenson says:
    November 24, 2010 at 9:02 am
    “Incidentally water from the ocean depths would not be supersaturated with CO2 but would contain chemically combined CO2 in the form of carbonates.”

    Carbonates are present as well, of course, but there is also dissolved CO2 (some in the form of H30+ and HCO3- ions). The literature I have seen does not give a reliable CO2 concentration (and there are some major contradictions), but reports of effervescence at natural upwellings imply that at least some must be supersaturated.

    “Having extracted your CO2 from the atmosphere what miraculous low energy reaction system do you propose for reducing CO2/H2O to produce the hydrcarbon fuels with its huge payback in energy terms?”

    The most relevant reactions (at elevated T & P) are of the form
    H20H2 +1/2O2 – 242kJ/mol
    CO2+4H2 CH4 + 2H2O +165kJ/mol
    CO2+3H2 [-CH2-] +2H2O + 110kJ/mol

    I don’t know what you mean by “miraculous” or “low energy” or “huge payback”. Surely you realise that the energy required to make the fuel is equal to its energy of combustion (plus an allowance for inefficiencies)?

    “You seem to have given this scheme (CO2/H2O => hydrocarbon fuels) a great deal of thought. Have you considered what the flowsheet would look like and what would a) be the capital cost of a full scale plant to absorb/desorb atmospheric CO2 and b) the operating costs? Similarly capital and operating costs for the plant to reduce CO2/H2O to the hydrocabon”

    Those questions are unanswerable; they depend upon the primary energy source and its costs, and the detailed development of the technologies employed. You did notice that I said “long term”, I hope? Order of magnitude estimates suggest a capital cost, at today’s prices, in the range ~£10bn – £100bn, which, amortised at 10%, would mean ~0.5p/kg fuel excluding the primary energy cost. This figure should not be taken too seriously; what it does mean is that one could expect the extraction and reforming costs to be sufficiently low not to dominate the final price, which in turn means that such synthetic fuels could remain competitive for road, marine and aviation purposes, etc., largely irrespective of the nature and cost of the primary energy.

  318. Bother, wordpress has messed up my equations (thought my attempts to indicate a reversible equilibrium were html tags, I guess). I repeat them below, using equals signs.

    H20 = H2 +1/2O2 – 242kJ/mol
    CO2+4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O +165kJ/mol
    CO2+3H2 = [-CH2-] +2H2O + 110kJ/mol

  319. Paul Birch

    That is precisely my meaning what is the point of developing an expensive reduction process (at elevated T & P) to which you have to input more energy than you subsequently release in combustion; it would be a complete waste of time and effort.

  320. Paul Birch

    The need to develop ‘geo engineering technology ‘ to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere is largely academic anyway as the predominantly one way absorption process of CO2 into the oceans is doing just precisely that.

    CO2- Water Solubility

    Henry’s-law constant H for CO2-water solutions is 1.42*10^3 atm/mole fraction at 20 C . Using simple Henry’s-law solubilities (p=H*x), the oceans should hold only 30% of the 2,900 giga tonnes of the atmospheric CO2 at equilibrium, but the actual figure is >50 times this amount. In fact, for an ideal vapour-liquid equilibrium system obeying Raoult’s law, an atmospheric pressure of 175 atmospheres (or alternatively a very high concentration of CO2) would be required to contain this colossal amount (50*2,900=145,000 giga tonnes) of CO2 in the oceans. The majority share of CO2 is taken up by the oceans competing with the biosphere’s CO2 requirements for plant growth and food supply. Non-ideality accounts for its large solubility in water and clearly it is sequestered and fixed by chemical and biological reactions. They involve the formation of carbonate rocks and phytoplankton growth through photosynthesis. The reactions remove dissolved CO2 from the equilbrium equation, driving it to the right, thereby giving the oceans a near limitless ability to absorb CO2.

    The oceans take the lion’s share of CO2 – it should be noted that the White Cliffs of Dover used to be atmospheric CO2.

  321. Myron Mesecke says

    ‘We will remember this if the United States ever has to come to the aid of your country again. Imagine if we had kept our dirty exports of tanks, guns, ships and planes during WWI and WWII?’

    I would point out that from June 1940 t0 June 22 1941 when Britain stood alone against the Axis powers predominantly Hitler, we were desperate for any ally to help us carry on the war to eventually liberate Europe. Although we stood alone we had some notable successes which were (a) the defeat of the Italian army in Libya and East Africa following the defeat of the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. (b) Naval successes such as sinking the Bismark in the Atlantic, disabling the Italian fleet in Taranto harbour with carrier based torpedo bombers (which incidentally the Japanese copied and as their blueprint for Pearl Harbour).(c) The defence of Greece by Wavell against the Italians and Germans which critically delayed Hitler’s invasion of Russia for four weeks (d) The provision of radar to the US which they could have used better at Pearl Harbour, and subsequently was in the Pacific ( the Japanese never had radar. (d) The breaking of Japanese codes, leading to the victory of Midway, was done by the British in the 1930’s. If the British had come to an accommodation with Hitler in May 1941 as they could honourably have done, having resisted for so long with no prospect of any allies to share the load, or if they had lost the Battle of Britain and gone down in 1940, there would have been no cross channel invasion in 1944 and the US would have been blockaded on the west coast by the Japanese and on the east coast by hordes of German U boats.

    Fortunately Hitler provided us with an ally by invading the Soviet Union which reduced the pressure us for which we were thankful. We subsequently did as much as was could to assist our ally with RAF squadrons on the eastern front and arctic convoys to Murmansk.

  322. @ Myron Mesecke

    I could go on and on – the North American p51 Mustang was a British designed long range escort for flying fortresses over Europe. It first flew with the RAF and was powered by the legendary Rolls Royce Merlin engine which powered the Supermarine Spitfire (scourge of the Luftwaffe) and the Avro Lancaster four engined Bomber. The jet engine developed by Frank Whittle, used in the first operational Gloster Meteor jetplane against V1 flying bombs, was handed over to the US for manufacture under ‘licence’ with no royalty payments as part payment for lease lend.

  323. Robert Stevenson says:
    November 25, 2010 at 7:14 am
    “That is precisely my meaning what is the point of developing an expensive reduction process (at elevated T & P) to which you have to input more energy than you subsequently release in combustion; it would be a complete waste of time and effort.”

    For the same reason we use expensive combustion processes to which we have to input two or three times more energy than we get out as electricity. Convenience. Hydrocarbon fuels are convenient. An extremely useful energy storage medium. So we will still want to use them, even when we no longer rely upon fossil fuels for primary energy production.

    I have also argued that the capture and reduction processes themselves should not be expensive; they can be expected to amount to only a small fraction of current motor fuel prices (in the region of 5%). Thus, so long as the primary energy is cheap enough (less than around 10p/kWhr), such synthetic fuel will be viable. It is possible that other techniques will out-compete, of course. Mr Fusion retrofits, perhaps. But I would be very surprised if there were no long term demand. We still use horse-drawn carts, fuelled with hay!

  324. Robert Stevenson says:
    November 25, 2010 at 7:50 am
    “The need to develop ‘geo engineering technology ‘ to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere is largely academic anyway as the predominantly one way absorption process of CO2 into the oceans is doing just precisely that.”

    You keep missing my point; we want to extract CO2 as a resource, as a feedstock for fuel manufacture and hydroponic food production. This is a sensible thing to do because it does not change atmospheric concentrations. Extraction from seawater is somewhat more problematic, because, depending on the relative concentrations of residual CO2 and fertilising nutrients in the lifted water, there may be either a net release to the atmosphere, or a net uptake; and precisely which is hard to predict.

    “Henry’s-law constant H for CO2-water solutions is 1.42*10^3 atm/mole fraction at 20 C . Using simple Henry’s-law solubilities (p=H*x), the oceans should hold only 30% of the 2,900 giga tonnes of the atmospheric CO2 at equilibrium, but the actual figure is >50 times this amount.”

    You are misapplying Henry’s Law. That is the solubility in the surface water (at 1 atmosphere total pressure). The Henry’s Law solubility increases linearly with depth.

  325. @ Paul Birch

    ‘For the same reason we use expensive combustion processes to which we have to input two or three times more energy than we get out as electricity. Convenience. Hydrocarbon fuels are convenient. An extremely useful energy storage medium. So we will still want to use them, even when we no longer rely upon fossil fuels for primary energy production’.

    Admittedly the use of fossil fuel in the power cycle has at best a Rankine Efficiency of 50% or so even operating near the triple point but at least the fuel is cheap and relatively abundant. A scheme like yours which requires the output of three power stations* to provide the fuel for one power station seems basically flawed.
    *By your own admission you would have put in far more energy than you would get out; and also with a primary fuel as cheap as 10p/kWh why bother with a synthetic fuel.

    ‘You are misapplying Henry’s Law. That is the solubility in the surface water (at 1 atmosphere total pressure). The Henry’s Law solubility increases linearly with depth’.

    This maybe so but the absorption process is essentially a surface phenomenon with the driving force from the gas phase proportional to 1 atmos*mole fraction CO2 and as the process is gas phase controlling, what happens to H at depth is of no relevance.

  326. @ Paul Birch

    ‘You keep missing my point; we want to extract CO2 as a resource, as a feedstock for fuel manufacture and hydroponic food production.’

    I am rapidly running out of steam on this website (I didnt think it was for fifth columnist global warmists) but I get the message you want to extract CO2 from massive volumes of air . Couldn’t you apply yourself instead to processing carbonate rocks which would give far higher concentrations of CO2 to deal with and more compact plant to design (rather than something the size of the Empire State Building). In addition magnesite would give you by product magnesium after carbochlorination/and treatment in an Alcan cell etc.

  327. Robert Stevenson says:
    November 26, 2010 at 10:16 am
    @ Paul Birch ‘For the same reason we use expensive combustion processes to which we have to input two or three times more energy than we get out as electricity. Convenience. Hydrocarbon fuels are convenient. An extremely useful energy storage medium. So we will still want to use them, even when we no longer rely upon fossil fuels for primary energy production’.

    “Admittedly the use of fossil fuel in the power cycle has at best a Rankine Efficiency of 50% or so even operating near the triple point but at least the fuel is cheap and relatively abundant.”

    There is no such fundamental limit on the efficiency of primary power stations – not even on fossil fuel power stations. The factor of two or three I mentioned is a rough figure for the average thermodynamic efficiency of the power stations currently providing our electrical power. Despite that rather low efficiency (it was even lower in the past), we nevertheless make and use lots of electricity, for the reason I stated: convenience. What the thermodynamic efficiency may be is irrelevant to the value of the product. For many purposes, electricity is much more useful than any other form of energy, so we would still use it even if the generating efficiency were quite appallingly bad. Similarly, we find hydrocarbon fuels highly convenient for various other purposes – especially for vehicles – more so than any other form of energy. So we would still use them even if they cost a lot more than electricity does. Again, it is their value in use that counts; economic efficiency, not merely a crude energy efficiency of manufacture. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

    Fossil fuels are currently cheap and abundant, but, unless usage declines very strongly in the future (faster than 1/t, so total cumulative demand is bounded), they will not always be. When the cost of synthetic fuels falls below that of fossil fuels, they will almost inevitably tend to replace them in the market. (The effective costs include any taxes, levies, subsidies, and regulatory burdens on each). With sufficiently cheap primary energy, and appropriate regulatory regimes, this could happen in as little as a few years – or, on the other hand, with very cheap fossil fuel not in great demand, it might not come about for centuries. My best guess is that we are most likely to see some such production (possibly subsidised) within a decade or so.

    “A scheme like yours which requires the output of three power stations* to provide the fuel for one power station seems basically flawed.”

    It is not intended to provide fuel for power stations at all. Except for special cases like emergency generators, etc..

    “*By your own admission you would have put in far more energy than you would get out; and also with a primary fuel as cheap as 10p/kWh why bother with a synthetic fuel.”

    I did not say “far more energy”. Somewhat more energy, certainly. Depending on how determinedly one recycles the sensible heat, one should be able to keep the losses down below ~20% (ie, a factor of 1.25, not three). There’ll obviously be a trade-off of capital cost against running cost. What the optimum may be will depend – among other things – on the primary energy cost (not the cost of primary “fuel”, since we are not talking about fossil fuel plants, but “fuel-less” sources like solar or geothermal power, or technologies where the cost of the fuel itself is a minor or negligible component of total cost, such as fusion power).

    “This maybe so but the absorption process is essentially a surface phenomenon with the driving force from the gas phase proportional to 1 atmos*mole fraction CO2 and as the process is gas phase controlling, what happens to H at depth is of no relevance.”

    It is of great relevance. It would still be relevant even if the initial absorption process were only a surface phenomenon, because even diffusion alone will gradually take the surface CO2 down to the depths. However, considerable quantities of CO2 also enter the water at depth- from geological processes like volcanoes, as well as the action of acids like SiO2 on carbonates , and the biological decomposition of detritus from the photic zone. I suspect that much (or even most) of the deep CO2 may actually come from subducted carbonate deposits at destructive plate margins.

  328. Robert Stevenson says:
    November 26, 2010 at 12:48 pm
    “Couldn’t you apply yourself instead to processing carbonate rocks which would give far higher concentrations of CO2 to deal with and more compact plant to design (rather than something the size of the Empire State Building). In addition magnesite would give you by product magnesium after carbochlorination/and treatment in an Alcan cell etc.”

    No. It’s an inferior option. The environmental impact of mining so much carbonate rock and disposing of the huge quantities of waste quicklime would be considerable. The energy cost would be quite a bit higher than for direct extraction from the atmosphere, and total costs could also be expected to be significantly higher. The mines would before long extend over a far greater area than the atmospheric plant, which once built could continue to operate indefinitely (unlike a mine, which is a depleting resource). It would make sense for cement works to capture and sell or reform their CO2 as a by-product.

    (Actually, I do have a method for devolatilising mega-quantities of carbonate rocks, but it’s not exactly ideal for a populated planet. It’s a radical terraforming technique, not a sustainable utility).

  329. @ Paul Birch
    ‘No. It’s an inferior option. The environmental impact of mining so much carbonate rock and disposing of the huge quantities of waste quicklime would be considerable.’

    you wouldnt get quicklime from magnesite. I thought you might know that.

    Have you tried any of your schemes out out on Kellog or Bechtel? I’m sure they would soon show you where the door is.

  330. R Stevenson says:
    November 27, 2010 at 10:19 am
    “you wouldnt get quicklime from magnesite. I thought you might know that.”

    Most carbonate rocks are largely calcium carbonate. I thought even you would realise that. But disposing of large quantities of magnesia would be scarcely less problematic. Using the magnesia for constructional purposes (or reducing some of it to magnesium) would be an option, but then there would be no built-in recycling mechanism to draw the CO2 back out of the atmosphere. It would no longer be a “carbon neutral” process. Moreover, locating and mining out 30 cubic kilometres of pure magnesite per year would be quite a challenge.

    “Have you tried any of your schemes out out on Kellog or Bechtel? I’m sure they would soon show you where the door is.”

    Do you not understand the meaning of “long term”? I’ve tried spelling it out, but you seem too prejudiced to pay attention.

  331. @ Paul Birch
    ‘Most carbonate rocks are largely calcium carbonate. ‘

    I was referring specifically to magnesite which can be carbochlorinated with CO/Cl2 in a single reactor and is self sufficient in reductant (see MPLC process).

    Are you some sort of diletante scientist who hasn’t got a proper job?

  332. R Stevenson says:
    November 28, 2010 at 6:18 am
    “I was referring specifically to magnesite which can be carbochlorinated with CO/Cl2 in a single reactor and is self sufficient in reductant (see MPLC process).”

    You did not refer “specifically to magnesite”. Your actual words were “processing carbonate rocks”. Further on, you then went on to say “In addition, magnesite …” (my italics).

    Moreover, as I have already pointed out, even if you could find and mine sufficient pure magnesite (by contrast with dolomite, it is comparitively rare and tends to come in inconveniently thin veins), this would not eliminate the general disadvantages of carbonate rocks, which, to reiterate, include higher energy costs, higher total costs, environmental impact of large-scale mining, disposal of waste oxide product to the environment (or lack of carbon neutrality if the oxide is not so disposed of). Carbochlorination is a red herring; it is unlikely that there would be anything like as great a demand for magnesium metal as for CO2, and the hydrocarbons and other organics to be manufactured from it.

  333. @ Paul Birch

    ‘What is it that you contending is “ridiculous”? Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere? In the long term that is probably how…….’

    I do not know why you are so concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere its concentration in air could be doubled to 700ppm without any further contribution to global warming.
    At 288 K the black-body radiation or total emissive power from Earth is 391W/m^2 (124 Btu/h-ft^2). CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs 79.8W/m^2 after 3600m (CO2 absorptivity 0.184 at 350ppm or PcL of 1.24 m.atm). H2O in the atmosphere absorbs 248W/m^2 after 120m (H2O absorptivity 0.573 for a PwL of 2.77 m.atm).

    Doubling CO2 to 700ppm would absorb the same 79.8W/m^2 after only 2000m ( CO2 absorptivity 0.195 at 700ppm 0r PcL of 1.4 m.atm).

  334. Robert Stevenson says:
    November 30, 2010 at 7:54 am
    @ Paul Birch ‘What is it that you contending is “ridiculous”? Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere? In the long term that is probably how…….’

    “I do not know why you are so concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere its concentration in air could be doubled to 700ppm without any further contribution to global warming.”

    I am not “concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere”. I am in favour of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere as a cheap, convenient, non-polluting and sustainable resource. You seem to think that’s ridiculous, even though that’s just how the biosphere has worked for millions of years! It has nothing to do with AGW.

    Perhaps I should not be surprised, but I am nevertheless frustrated by how readily people here keep jumping to the illogical conclusion that just because an idea is favoured by some AGW believer somewhere, it must be nonsense. This seems to have become an article of faith, as idiotic and ideological as AGW itself.

Comments are closed.