South Korea announces delay the day after Australia’s carbon tax repeal
Story submitted by Eric Worrall
In a sign that rejection of climate alarm is gathering momentum, South Korea has thrown doubt on its carbon plans. Significantly, the announcement was made the day after Australia abolished the carbon tax. According to the report;
“July 18 (Reuters) – South Korea’s finance minister has called its impending emissions trading market “flawed in many ways”, hinting that he would pressure other ministries to delay the planned 2015 launch, a local newspaper reported.
Choi Kyung-hwan, who is also deputy prime minister, said problems had been found with the scheme, which is due to start in January, and that the government would review them before deciding whether to delay it, modify it or implement it as planned, The Korea Times reported on Friday.”
http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL6N0PT3CZ20140718
(h/t to WUWT reader Pat)
South Korea’s courageous stand against carbon madness raises hope that Australia’s rejection of carbon pricing will be the domino which topples any chance of global cooperation on CO2
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John Carter
I am trying to help you here. You can be on the cutting edge of the next major crisis, you can be the one that saves the world and gets the cash. The link between co2 and temperature is unraveling but the link between co2 and an increase in the greening of the planet is undeniable. Even all the Deniers here will agree with that.
Since there is a documentable increase in UFO sightings at the same time the answer must be obvious to even you. Whether its man made or natural, co2 is the enemy because it is causing our planet to be more attractive to Aliens. We either need the UN to force a decrease in co2 or we need to beef up our planetary defenses.
You could be the voice; the one that saves the world. I personally would go with beefing up our planetary defenses. Lowering co2 will be harder and you have to find away to feed all the people that will be starving from the decrease in harvest yield, but I leave it you to decide. You are, after all, the expert.
“19th C America was nothing but one long panic/bank run after another, destroying the wealth and property of farmers, ranchers, and small businesses for a century.”
Whereas, in a century of the money supply being controlled by the Glorious People’s Fed, the value of the dollar has fallen by around 95%. Which is clearly better. Or something.
Greenhouse gases absorb in the infrared. Your comment shows you don’t understand that.
“Whether its man made or natural, co2 is the enemy because it is causing our planet to be more attractive to Aliens. We either need the UN to force a decrease in co2 or we need to beef up our planetary defenses.”
No, you have it the wrong way round. The aliens are here to save us from Global Warming. Remember how they fly around the world mutilating cattle? That’s part of a desperate attempt to stop the cattle farts that are going to kill us if we don’t DO SOMETHING NOW!
In the US, it is the duty and legal requirement of Congress to regulate the Federal Reserve.
====================
“Just as Congress and the president control fiscal policy, the Federal Reserve System dominates monetary policy, the control of the supply and cost of money. Since monetary policy affects every sector of the economy, the Fed has to be considered coequal with the president and Congress in macroeconomic decision making.”
http://www.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/fed.html
A surprising number of Americans are not aware that the Federal Reserve is privately owned, and the implications of this ownership. It is the Federal Reserve (private), not the US Treasury (public) that creates US currency. The Treasury then borrows money from the Fed to run the country. As a result, the US government cannot simply print more money when it needs it.
Policycritic
There were also huge booms during the 19th century that created huge increases in the standard of living that we enjoy today. Boom and bust are what create a healthy well adjusted economy.
I can buy into the lender of last resort bit to keep the financial system from collapsing, but that is not the primary function of the fed today. It’s primary function today is to monitise government debt. This has totally frozen growth in this country and created a perminet upper class and all but destroyed the ability of the poor or middle class to increase their own wealth. It has also nearly destroyed are ability to compete globally.
Like everything else with government and quasi governmental system the work best when they are limited most.
Yet you also say: (my bold)
Do you see your contradiction? In science experiment and observations are everything. They are king. Observations tell us there is no need to panic, and that the CAGW hypothesis is garbage. Sure the world will warm this century, but OBSERVATIONS today tell as it will be mild and geological time tells us it will be net beneficial. Here is one of the hottest periods in the last 100 million years – the PETM. The biosphere thrived, biodiversity increased et al.
Mark G
Thank you
You have given me a little, I am not sure that you are right but a least you have given me a reason to put on pants today and go out side.
@bit chilly at 1:06 am
john carter, please do not worry about carbon dioxide. someone has been pulling your leg, it is no more a pollutant than oxygen.
Indeed, from the point of view of the bulk of biomass on this planet, oxygen is a most dangerous pollutant. It is because of oxygen that forests are threatened by fire.
John Carter says:
July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am
the concentration of long lived greenhouse gases to levels not seen on earth in several million years
================
About the same time as the Ice Ages started. Co-incidence? Hardly.
for zillions of years CO2 levels were higher than today, and life did OK. They the Ice Ages came, and CO2 levels dropped (CO2 follows temp). And for a couple of million years we have had (on average) low levels of CO2. Barely enough to support photosynthesis.
Now things are warming up, and CO2 levels are rising. Back to where they were a couple of million years ago. About where they were before the Ice Ages. Similar to conditions when humans first appeared on the planet. And the problem is?
John, the first lesson in global warming is to stand outside naked, overnight. Bask in the warm of all the CO2 back radiation. Unless you live in a tropical jungle, you will be hugely uncomfortable and at risk of dying of exposure. The simple fact is that virtually everywhere on the surface of the earth, virtually every ocean on earth, is much too cold for an unprotected human to survive long term.
The first Humans appeared 4+ million years ago. At a time when the earth was much warmer, when CO2 levels were much higher. If we had not learned to domesticate fire, it is highly unlikely we would be here today. CO2 is a by-product of the domestication of fire. The fundamental discovery of human existence.
Mark G
You know it could be that the Aliens are reading John Carter’s posts and have determined that the cows are the only real threat to their take over.
I think I will put my PJ,s back on
Thanks for trying
Katherine says:
July 19, 2014 at 4:18 am
John Carter says:
July 19, 2014 at 12:31 am
Usually I just ignore John Carter’s posts since he just seems to be trolling for clicks to his blog, but this jumped at me. By greenhouse gases, I have to assume he means CO2, since I haven’t heard of anyone advocating limits to water vapor emissions. To make a long story short…
Increase of CO2 content in the atmosphere for the past 50 years as measured at Mauna Loa:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/mauna-loa-co2-1-percent-scale.jpg
Sure, that looks like a radical change. Not.
Interesting idea re the blog, but no, unless you know, you could write some comments or want to go back to it. But I would think here there wouldn’t be much interest in posts that don’t specifically serve to try to discredit actual climate science, as, for example, this comment here by you does. Ridiculously.
What is the point of that chart? The discovery that the entire world has it wrong, and CO2 hasn’t risen, nor that the moon really revolves around the earth? Or, about as similarly, the fact that CO2 isn’t relevant because most of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen – you know, Science God Michelle Bachmann’s point, right behind the idea that balance isn’t what matters in science, only absolute numbers or amounts.(Which is right in front of the idea that the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it.) Point being, atmospheric [CO2] is low, low is all that is needed to have a profound affect. This is not in dispute. So the chart > pointless, and misinforming for those who don’t know how pointless it is.
By the way, you should read my posts here, that’s why I write them. I know the official belief is that the purpose is to just get a better understanding of the climate change issue. And, well, since I’m pretty knowledgeable on them (and sometimes kind of funny), how valuable! Particularly since there doesn’t seem to be um, “a lot” of posts putting forth well, most of the story. And to get a more accurate feel for the story – again, the purpose, right? – you would want to read those.
By the way, speaking of my blog and your wry water vapor comment, what is natural (sunlight) or a response (water vapor) is out of our control, Thus not at issue in terms of addressing what we might be doing that is harmful to our own interests. Water vapor is short lived, and likely changes in water vapor levels are one of the affects of a change in something else that would drive climate (such as a forcing – radically increased long lived GG molecules, and what is going on right now, for instance, at a level reflecting a multi million year change.) It’s also the most interesting in some ways, because it has warming (more = more re radiation as a GG) and cooling (more = higher albedo which reflects more solar radiation back outward) and interesting precipitation implications in both directions.
Ferdbereple
Funny but I thought congress votes to increase the debt. I don’t remember the last time the Fed told the government that they wouldn’t create money to finance its debt, so much for its independence. The only question left is is it the government that controls the Fed or the other way around. I leave that to you to decide, but either way its not a country of the people.
Individual liberty with all its risks is the only out of this ridiculous mess that we are in.
John
But what are you going to do about the Aliens!
Bob Boder says:
John Carter
I am trying to help you here.
John Carter cannot be helped. His mind is made up, and closed tighter than a submarine hatch. If he admitted to the many verified, empirical facts posted here, his head would explode from cognitive dissonance.
Carter says:
And, well, since I’m pretty knowledgeable…
Cherry-picking and confirmation bias do not equate to knowledge. Skepticism is essential to scientific knowledge, but Carter is about as far from being a scientifc skeptic as it is possible to be. He is a religious True Believer, who never responds to questions.
Carter argues incessantly over nitpicking points, while avoiding the central issue: global warming has stopped, despite endless predictions to the contrary by the alarmist crowd. How does Carter explain that?
He doesn’t.
I am more of a philosopher than scientist~ well, actually I’m zero percent scientist, because I don’t engage in physical experiments. Equally so, any supposed scientist that draws conclusions or hypothesizes from computer models isn’t a scientist. Computer models can ‘flesh out’ a situation, provided that the inputs are sound. For example~ aircraft can be entirely and reliably designed within a virtual environment driven by computers, and that is because the science of aerodynamics is very robust and makes for good input into the computer models. No one modeling a new aircraft in the cyber realm could make a new, as of yet unknown, discovery about aerodynamics. It would be dismissed as an artifact of the model, and would lead to a correction of the model. Modeling isn’t science. Modeling is applied science. The foundation for the inputs must be strong. A computer model cannot be an experiment. Philosophers of science (such as myself) are not scientists, but they have a value to science, in that they can point in which direction to look, and propose experiments that true scientists haven’t thought of. CO2 may have absorption frequencies in the infrared, but when that absorbed radiation is emitted, it favors no direction. The Green House Gas hypothesis generally seems accurate, because absorbed radiation from the surface of earth by gasses that can absorb it, re-emit it in random directions, and nearer the surface, where densities of such gasses are higher, the higher the probability that other nearby molecules will absorb the emissions. Heat is stored near the surface of the earth by gasses. That cannot be disputed. Hansen’s claim of the contribution of the gasses is in error, because he treated the surface of earth as an ideal black body emitter, which obviously couldn’t be true. Why does no one do experiments? They should be relatively easy. All gases in the atmosphere are heated by sunlight heating the ground. They rise in response, which is what creates wind. CO2 isn’t somehow special in that regard. CO2 doesn’t cause warming, it is liberated from the oceans as they warm.
John Carter says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:27 am
///////////////////
John
There is nothing illogical about my statement.
As far as the science is concerned, there are 2 issues. First, there is the theoretical issue of the properties of CO2 (and other so called GHGs) in laboratory conditions. This can be ascertained by experimentation.
Second there is the issue as to how doees CO2 behave in real life conditions, ie., the environs of planet earth, and what effect does an increase in CO2 have in those real life conditions. This is not a theortetical issue, but rather a practical one. We cannot replicate Earth’s environ in the laboratory. Accordingly, all we can do is to observe what is happening, ie., each day we conduct experiments that collect data on CO2, and every day we collect data on temperatures.
Now we know that since the late 1950s, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, however, we also know that there is no correlation in any temperature data set and CO2 levels.
There may be many reasons as to why that is the case, but it is a fact. Presently, we cannot detect, within the margins of error of our best measuring devices, the signal of CO2 on temperature. Such signal as there may be, is drowned by natural variation. That does not mean that there is no signal; there may be, but our measuring equipment is not sophisticated (and/or accurate) enough to detect it. That suggests (but does not prove) that the signal is rather small (since we would expect to be able to measure it), and/or the effects of natural variation are rather large (and far larger than was accepted in TAR and subsequent issues of the IPCC reports) .
As I say, I am not concerned by the science. It will come out, it just a question of time.
The thrust of my comment, and upon which did not respond, was the policy response. IF it is though desirable to curb, or cut CO2 emissions then Carbon Trading/Carbon Taxes do not achieve that result. Likewise renewable energies such as solar or wind.
IF one desired to curb or reduce CO2 emissions then a different policy response is required, eg., to switch from coal to gas. To not use fossil fuels for baseload energy production, but instead use nuclear. Perhaps to create additional sinks, eg., to vegatate or forest land which is presently scrub land, or to seed the oceans (something I very much do not favour). It is that type of policy response that will achieve the goal of curbing CO2.
Frequently, it is overlooked that the USA which was much criticised for not signing up to the Kyoto Protocol, has reduced its CO2 emissions the mosts amongst the developed nations, The USA has manged to achive this by exploiting its shale reserves and switching from coal to gas. So we know that a policy of switching from coal to gas does lead to real measurable results in cutting CO2.
I for one am not concened either by CO2 levels which are historically (on a geological time scale) at the low end of the spectrum, and significantly lower when life (and plants in particular) first took hold, nor by temperatures which are also at the low end of the spectrum on a historical basis. Every thing we know about life on planet Earth suggests that cold and arid, is bad, warm and wet is good for life. Planet Earth is far too cold for us as a species, the only inhabitable places are the tropical rain forests etc (ie., places where we can survive without clothes and without adapting the nevironment. Tropical rainforests are the most bio diverse areas on planet earth because life, of all types, loves warmth and moisture. The history of civilisation shows that man reached his zeniths in warm periods, eg Minoan, Roman, Viking, Present Day. I see no deamons should planet Earth warm by 3 or 4 degC, only net benefits. But that is a different issue, and one which Climate Scioentists have failed to properly research.
‘John Carter’ also forgets that we’ve seen years of governments and other alarmists claiming that we’ve reached a ‘tipping point’ and we have only two years/months/days/milliseconds to act, and we must DO SOMETHING NOW! to SAVE THE WORLD! or WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
And we do nothing, and the world doesn’t end, and soon after they’re back telling us that we have ‘TWO DAYS TO SAVE THE WORLD!’ even though it’s two years after they last told us we have ‘TWO DAYS TO SAVE THE WORLD!’ and they act like we’re all so stupid that we won’t even notice that they were utterly wrong the last time.
Before long, no-one can take anything the alarmists say seriously, because they have such a long and widely-publicised history of being utterly wrong and never admitting to it. Particularly when we’re having one of the coldest summers I remember.
Besides which, even if WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE! from BABY-KILLING CAMEL FARTS, what South Korea may or may not do will make no measurable difference. They’re a small nation whose output of both CO2 and camel farts is insignificant compared to China.
Personally, I think I’m going to have to buy the turbo version of my new SUV instead of the non-turbo to try to get some Global Warming up here in the Frozen North, because we could sure do with some this year. Or maybe I should buy a couple of camels instead?
I don’t remember the last time the Fed told the government that they wouldn’t create money to finance its debt
=================
the Fed is happy to create money and lend it to the US government. it isn’t like they are playing with their own money. the Feds funds remain safe as capital reserves, which are guaranteed a 6% return.
Katherine on Mauna Loa:
Beauriful perspective!
Mark G
That’s why I am trying to get John C to get the Alien problem some attention. It’s the only true issue of our time
After you buy the Turbo SUV and puff your cigs don’t come crying to me when the Aliens come after you first.
John C could you step in here and talk to this denier nut case for me, no one can stand up to you when you wax logical
John Carter;
And, well, since I’m pretty knowledgeable on them (and sometimes kind of funny), how valuable!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As our conversation on the Australia thread reveals, you aren’t conversant in the very basics of the science. When confronted with an explanation using terms like “transient” and “equilibrium” and “Stefan-Boltzmann” and “heat capacity” and “energy flux” you accused me of “gobbeldy gook” and complained that I was deliberately writing in a manner that you couldn’t follow. If you believe those terms are “gobbeldy gook” you had best call up the United Nations and tell them that they have to revise all their vaunted reports because you, John Carter, have determined that they are “gobbledy gook”. You had best advise all the climate scientists you purport to explain to us that THEIR papers are similarly “gobbledy gook”.
As I said in the other thread, learn the terminology, learn how it is applied, read the papers yourself instead of quoting what some news organization supposedly says what the paper supposedly says, read the IPCC reports, learn what they say, learn what the science says.
Otherwise you are just a garden variety troll who claims expertise that he demonstrably doesn’t have.
Ferdperple
Your idea of safe and mine are apparently different, but the point is the Fed concern is keeping the government afloat and the rich, rich nothing else. They have all but bought the government by devaluing the dollar and enslaving me and you.
I have no problem with wealth I only have a problem when it is institutionalized which is what is happening now.
Both the Fed and the government need to be dialed way back they are both out of control.
From a macroeconomic POV, the standard of living has risen in last century, not fallen, and the value of the assets those dollars bought has exploded exponentially. You need to look at both sides of the ledger to make a reasoned assessment. The value of what a dollar bought may have fallen individually, but not collectively. We are far, far, far better off today as a society than we were in 1900. You can’t just look at one thing.
Correct. When was the last time you saw the Prez and Congress exercise fiscal policy? (Fiscal policy trumps monetary policy. The purpose of monetary policy is to maintain fiscal policy goals.) Example of fiscal policy: when the economy is ice cold, cut taxes and increase spending. Economy running hot (everyone employed and earning money), increase taxes and cut spending. Taxes are the thermostat, not a source of revenue.
The 12 regional Federal Reserve district banks are owned by the banks in the district. It is not a private corporation like a regular private corp. Shares can’t be sold or traded. Value of shares remain strictly at basis of original capital (6% of operating capital) no matter how much the individual bank may profit over the decades. Dividends paid by the Federal Reserve Board to regional Federal Reserve banks is around 1.56% each annually (see Fed annual report).
The US Treasury creates US currency every day, and sells them at auction to the world once a month. They are called treasury securities. Only 11.5%-12% of all US currency is cash and coin. The rest is treasury securities, which everyone laps up because the FDIC only insures bank accounts to $250,000, and treasury securities are safest financial instrument in the world at present. Only the US Treasury can issue treasury securities. The US Treasury does not ‘borrow’ from the Fed, although they use that ridiculous term. The US Treasury spends first, after Congress appropriates, then issues treasury securities in same amount to rebalance the money supply (mop up extra dollars in the system), and because a gold standard-era law still stands that the US Treasury cannot have an overdraft in its General Account at the Fed.
The US government can spend when it needs or wants to, with no debt accruing to children or grandchildren. President Obama and his insane lawyer Sec of Treas don’t know this, and we are going down the tubes—suffering–as a result.