Climate Wars: Nick Stern Threatens U.S. With Trade Boycott
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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
——–
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
Paul Birch said:
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.
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.
Paul
With regard to your Nov 20, 2010 @ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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…)
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.
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. 😉
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gail Combs says:
November 22, 2010 at 8:14 am
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