Tilak Doshi Contributor
I analyze energy economics and related public policy issues.
The EU published a whole raft of additional climate policies on July 14th with its long-awaited “Fit for 55” package to make Europe carbon neutral by 2050. It included its most contentious plank – the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). On July 19th, US Democrat legislators introduced a similar bill to tax imported goods for their carbon content sourced from countries that lack strict environmental policies. Details on the US proposal are scant, with one leading newspaper article stating that the US would “require companies that want to sell steel, iron, and other goods to the United States to pay a price for every ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted during their manufacturing processes. If countries can’t or won’t do that, the United States could impose its own price.” It would seem that the Nordhaus climate club has become the policy vehicle of choice for advocates of the “climate emergency” on both sides of the Atlantic.
Why The Climate Club
On the face of it, the climate club’s logic is straightforward enough. It is to replace the earlier flawed architectures of the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015) which were voluntary international agreements to reduce carbon emissions. To mitigate the problem of ‘free riders’ that inevitably emerge with such agreements, the climate club would establish an incentive structure that penalized nations that did not play by the rules.
The EU and the US want to impose trade tariffs to bring the cost of carbon-dioxide emissions caused by the manufacture of an imported good into alignment with what a domestic producer would pay to produce the same good. European and American companies are less competitive because they have to pay for their emissions while foreign companies that export to them don’t. Thus rules to reduce emissions will encourage companies in the West to “offshore” their production to developing countries which have less onerous restrictions on emissions, a process known as “carbon leakage”. Brussels and Washington, it is claimed, merely intend to “level the playing field”. Of course the question arises, whose playing field?
The European Commission will initially apply the CBAM to imports from energy intensive sectors including iron and steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers and electricity, coming into force from January 2026. An analysis by a bank found that Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, India and China will be amongst the most impacted by the CBAM. The complexity of the Brussels-concocted plan ensures that exporters to the EU will have their work cut out for them. Exporting firms will have to document detailed carbon audits on their emissions which would include calculating the percentage of emissions that are already covered by carbon taxes elsewhere (domestic and for imports which go into manufacturing the exports). If these complex and expensive analyses are beyond the compliance capabilities of firms, especially for small and medium-sized businesses, the EC will unilaterally establish carbon tariffs on the basis of the dirtiest 10% of European producers of the same good.
The Climate Club’s Detractors
On July 26th, China opened its first defensive salvo against the EU’s plan to impose the world’s first carbon border tax, stating that it intruded climate issues into international trading norms, broke WTO rules and undermined prospects for economic growth. Earlier in April when it became apparent that both the EU and the US Biden administration were considering extra-territorial and unilateral policies to enforce upon the world their own predilections to “fight climate change”, India also adopted a position similar to China’s. It issued a joint statement with the BASIC bloc — Brazil, South Africa, India and China — calling CBAM “discriminatory“ and expressing its “ grave concern”.MORE FOR YOUDubai Is Using Laser Drones To Shock Rainwater Out Of The SkyGasoline Prices Remain High And Could Go Higher, But There’s A CatchThe U.S. Remained The World’s Top Oil Producer In 2020
Detractors of the climate club – a club which threatens to be both exclusive and punitive for non-members — point out that carbon border taxes are contrary to the UN climate body’s Article 4. This refers to “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities”, an established feature of climate change negotiations since the UN’s first Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
Last week, at the G20 on climate change and energy, India cited this long-standing equitable principle in countering the “net zero by 2050” target backed by the EU, US, the UN climate body and other rich country-dominated multilateral agencies such as the IEA, the World Bank and the IMF. India’s environment minister Bhupender Yadav said that “…given the legitimate need of developing countries to grow, we urge G20 countries to commit to bring down per capita emissions to global average by 2030”.
While the global average is 6.5 tons per capita of CO2-equivalent, India emits just below 2 tons while the US emits 17.6 tons and Germany 10.4 tons. India asserted that as the rich countries have already “consumed” most of the available “carbon space” in the atmospheric sink since the Industrial Revolution, the “net zero by 2050” target is inadequate.
The detractors are not limited to developing countries. Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison called the proposed carbon tariff plan “trade protection by another name”. Russia, like China, sees the CBAM as running foul of WTO rules and had already made clear its views a year ago when the EU was mooting its Green Deal plans which included carbon tariffs.
Problems With The Climate Club
Apart from the UN climate body’s Article 4, there are areas in which the proposed carbon tariffs may conflict with WTO trading rules. They may be found to contravene the WTO’s rule of non‐discrimination, a mainstay of international trading norms which requires that any advantage granted to the imported products of one WTO member must be accorded immediately and unconditionally to like products originating from all other WTO members. Carbon tariffs could also be inconsistent with the WTO’s ‘ national treatment rule’, another foundation stone of modern international trade under the WTO regime which requires that imported products be given “no less favourable” treatment than that given to like domestic products. If European producers continue to receive free emissions allowances (as they do now under the EU’s Emission Trading System), then the EU will be found in violation of the “national treatment” rule.
It would seem that the putative rich-country climate club members are headed for an impasse with the rest of the world in the rules of international trade that have broadly prevailed since the Second World War. On the one hand, we have somewhat less that 20% of the world’s population represented by policy elites that are convinced that the “science is settled” and a “climate crisis” is upon us. On the other, we have the vast majority of the world’s population – over 6 billion — newly emerged from wretched poverty in recent decades or desperately trying to. For those beginning to enjoy — or at least having a fighting chance to taste — the fruits of economic growth and technological progress across Asia, Africa and Latin America, their worries are less to do with concerns of the carbon footprint of economic growth as much as ensuring that economic growth will re-emerge after the devastation brought on by the Covid pandemic lockdowns.
Democracy Prevails
But there is a final twist. The Western policy elites, convinced by climate models that purportedly predict dire climate conditions decades into the future, seem to be facing the constraints of democracy in their own backyards. After Switzerland dropped its negotiations with the EU, the country rejected a climate-protection law in a referendum last month. The referendum rejected all three parts of the law in separate votes: on CO2, on pesticides, and on drinking water. Two days ago, UK’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson, facing an increasing backlash from constituents over soaring heating costs with his plans to ban gas boilers in British homes in favour of expensive new-fangled heat pumps, delayed his government’s plans by 5 years to 2040.
For Europe, the greatest lesson of mass politics against climate change polices supported by metropolitan elites was the gilet jaune protests that was triggered by fuel taxes. As one acute observer put it, “The French love a good riot, but the political backlash to the French government’s plans to increase carbon taxes on fuel could be a harbinger of what’s to come in countries committed to the global warming crusade”. It is no surprise then that a senior economist at Deutsche Bank, one of Europe’s largest banks, warned that for the EU’s Green Deal to succeed, “a certain degree of eco-dictatorship will be necessary”. The climate club’s detractors have the tide of history on their side.
Follow me on Twitter.
I have worked in the oil and gas sector as an economist in both private industry and in think tanks, in Asia, the Middle East and the US over the past 25 years. I focus on global energy developments from the perspective of Asian countries that remain large markets for oil, gas and coal. I have written extensively on the areas of economic development, environment and energy economics. My publications include “Singapore in a Post-Kyoto World: Energy, Environment and the Economy” published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (2015). I won the 1984 Robert S. McNamara Research Fellow award of the World Bank and received my Ph.D. in Economics in 1992.
Thanks to Tilak Doshi for an excellent article. Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison is quite right when he called the proposed EU carbon tariff plan “trade protection by another name”. Most of what the EU has done, much of it at the behest of France, is protectionism of inefficient local agriculture and industry. Attempts in Asia and Africa to raise the population out of poverty are treated as if they were attacks on the EU’s economy.. Climate Change is the latest face mask for this unworthy venture.
I don’t even think that it is “protectionism” … they still need steel, etc. … prices in the ‘user’ countries will just increase as all the resources worldwide will become more expensive.
It is just dumb-azzed taxation to pay for the substantial increase in welfare that will be required.
But the ‘producer’ countries will have much cheaper steel, etc. Their economies will grow while the Western economies will shrink.
Since the beginning, I have consistently asserted that when U.S. Senate has to start debate on the costs of these schemes, the whole thing will fall apart. The ChiCom virus has created distortions such that the Leftists are trying to hide GND projects in “COVID relief” bills. However, 4.5 trillion dollars is too big a bite in my estimation. We’ll have to wait for the Appropriations Committees to debate this stuff.
Exactly! Tariffs, like all taxes, are ultimately paid for by consumers in the importing nation. The distortion becomes even worse if the taxing government allocates the tariff revenue towards making “improvements” that preferentially benefit politically connected crony capitalists or geographic regions at the expense of others. 19th century USA is one example that comes to mind.
I saw a real good documentary on the History Channel, on the 19th Century “Industrial Titans”, like Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Carnegy, Edison, and Tesla. It was very interesting.
These Titans jump-started the successful American economy after the Civil War. Some of their methods were questionable, but they made a big, beneficial difference in the lives of all Americans, then and now.
Vanderbilt = Railroads
Rockefeller = Oil
Carnegy = Steel
Edison and Tesla = Electricity
Yes! Almost without exception, these Titans became fabulously wealthy by either drastically reducing the prices of existing products and services, or by introducing new products and services to the public. And they did it with their own self interest in mind, usually concurrent with a failed effort to “cartelize” the market. What they didn’t know then, but what the crony capitalists of the Progressive Era and today eventually learned, is that a successful cartel requires government regulation to prevent market entry by potential competitors.
Good summation.
The US Senate will not debate the actual costs of anything, as it costs little to print money. There will be no costs to anybody, just printed money or its digital equivalent floating around. Someday somebody will have to pay the piper in one way or another, but the US Senate is unconcerned about that right now.
Actually, Mom, the Republicans blocked the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill because there were no details in it. It is those details about physical practicality, local opposition, and costs that will potentially kill the bill. The only chance that these sorts of bills have is by rushing them through before anybody can read and publicize the smelly parts.
This is why House Speaker Pelosi is insisting on the Democrat’s $3.5 Trillion grab-bag of Leftist dreams go before or concurrently with the “bipartisan,” cheaper bill. If the Congress passes the cheaper bill, the pressure will be off fast-tracking the mini-GND and, like any septic tank, the really big, smelly chunks will have time to float to the top.
As an example of the genius of the U.S. founding fathers (beyond the 2nd Amendment) members of the House of Representatives must run for reelection every two years. Pelosi knows that vulnerable Democrat House members cannot vote for these unpopular (amongst moderate voters) measures during the 2022 House election year. The closer we get to 2022, the more shaky Pelosi’s slim majority becomes as the more vulnerable Democrats see the writing on the wall.
Its now or never for her and her desperation is showing by her more and more extreme and reckless public comments. She is in a safe, Leftist congressional district and can say wild and illogical things and get away with it personally. I’m not sure that she sees the huge danger of such comments on the Democrat Party as a whole. It is a fact that Democrats have been losing in local and regional political contests (outside of both Left coasts) recently. November 2022 could be a huge disaster for them if the Democrat GND hysteria continues.
Mods, “Waiting approval” is easier on the brain than “Awaiting for approval.”
The global cooling is coming. The future climate models have to smooth the past historical record to show there was no such thing as little ice age. The earth’s temperature was after all much warmer than today. Studies of the tropical mahogany tree rings spliced on the current tree rings of Siberian trees showed a “hickey stick” pointing downwards. Here is the political chronology to guide the climate science of the near future:
1972 Stockholm conference — a very wide divergence of interest and suspicion between the developing countries and the former colonizers. To developing countries, environmental concerns are camouflage to restrict their development. After all, across the table were the officials of the developed world who less a generation ago was exploiting and raping the environment of the developing countries.
1982 UN did not convene a big conference but had a commission to examine the divergence at Stockholm and bridge it. The result was “Our Common Future”.
1992-UNCED or Rio Conference on Environment and Development– to get the developing countries on board, the concept of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) was adapted. The developed countries acknowledge their role on the state of the global environment and with its financial and technical resources agreed to assist developing countries.
UNFCCC was also signed at UNCED and the concept of CBDR was incorporated in Article 4. The developing countries were jumping up and down. UNFCCC is free money and technology flowing into their countries or at least to the pocket of their leaders. Developing countries agreed in unison.
Kyoto Protocol– Developing countries were discouraged. There was practically nothing for them. As consolation, CDM was added so that developed countries could meet their commitments cheaply. Some developing countries did make some money and technology from CDM. China is one of the biggest but most got peanuts. They dont have enough activities to generate the CDM credits.
2015- Paris Agreement Supersede Kyoto. Billions of green funds were promised to developing countries who will surrender their CBDR rights. Well developing countries may not have any obligation to cut their emission, but article 4 does not prohibit the developing countries from “voluntarily” reducing their emission or Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Developing countries were jumping up and down to get their Initial NDC as free money is coming– the cargo cult was correct after all.
2020- The money is not there. On the contrary, the UNFCCC will now be a justification for tariff and duties of goods from developing countries. It is not the cargo cult coming to reality but it is now the realization of the fears and distrust the developing countries had back in 1972 at Stockholm.
The next few years will be the end game. The developing countries will keep on demanding their money and technology. The developing countries will balk at the new trade barrier imposed on their products. The developed countries continue to keep promising the money and technology is coming while at the same time unwinding the global warming to cooling so that there is no need to give all those cash and technologies to the developing countries.
Save your copies of the Newsweek, Time, and other magazines when the issue was global cooling. If you dont have enough time to read the progress of the new global cooling — we have been there.
Ohhhh no it isn’t!
Oh c’m on, griff, it isn’t pantomime season yet.
Oh, wait ….. .
AGW, The Millennium Bug, The Hole in the Ozone Layer, Running out of Zinc etc…
What do they have in common with pantomimes?
It’s behind you.
We fixed the millennium bug, by hard effort; we fixed the ozone hole, by worldwide agreement and effort; we fixed acid rain (once again, by agreement and effort).
I have no knowledge of Zinc, but we fixed all sorts of real problems (DDT, leaded petrol) by international effort and agreement (we sort of saved the whales).
so none of them have any connection with pantomimes.
If you think we fixed acid rain, you have not looked at the data. We did reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, but that didn’t change the acidity of rainfall.
I’ve read that in some regions, farmers have had to add more sulfur to their fertilizer to make up for less falling from the sky.
All of them had strong connections with nonsense, not unlike the California dumping of good water, unused, into the ocean so that a few fish could be saved — but were not saved, and the killing of the lumber industry so that spotted owls could be save — but were not helped at all.
There was never any serious risk of anything going wrong from the clocks on computers rolling over to 2000. Only a moron like you could be stupid enough to believe in that fairy tale Full Employment Act for Worthless Consultants of 1999.
Al Gore’s first foray into “caring about the environment” for fun and profit was the CFC scam, likely aided and abetted by the very crony capitalists who stood to lose market share on refrigerants no longer protected by patents. That was the template for the CO2 scam. Of course you believe it “worked”. And the fact that there is still a natural seasonal ozone “hole”, is in your “mind” proof that the Chinese must be cheating.
There was some pollution from coal-fired power plants, and it was likely a good thing that they were cleaned up despite the expense, but rain water is naturally acidic and it was never a significant issue. Of course you believe that the government edict “worked”. It always does in your “mind”.
You have no knowledge of Zinc. Well, you added two extraneous words there griffo. More succinctly put: “You have no knowledge”. Full stop.
Only one of those three crisis actually existed, and the first wasn’t a real crisis, just a big headache for people in certain industries.
The ozone hole has always existed, wasn’t growing and hasn’t shrunk in the years since.
Ditto acid rain, outside a few small sections of German forest, it never existed. In the US lake and stream acidification was caused by forests growing back after farming moved from the NorthEast to the MidWest.
Griff: “We fixed the ozone hole”.
Lying again, are we, Griffie-poo? https://earthsky.org/earth/antarctic-ozone-hole-2020-among-largest-deepest-in-recent-years/#:~:text=At%2023.3%20million%20square%20km,NASA%20Ozone%20Watch%2F%20Katy%20Mersmann.
“We fixed the millennium bug, by hard effort”??
What planet you live on, or were you still in pampers back then??
There WAS NO millenium bug, it was just another con-game to sell people more PCs.
“We saved the whales??”!!
It was fossil fuels saved the whales pal!
Before that they used to burn whale oil.
From your comments you are also part of the con-game by your own admission.
The millennium bug was a real problem. It was identified and fixed by users, government/laws had very little to do with it. Very strange that these people do not receive any credit for what was an excellent bit of work. I am retired and have no axe to grind.
well I’m kind of missing it, what with the pandemic having blown it away last year…
Honestly Griff, is that the best we can expect from the other side of the argument. Really, eo has invested some time in putting down his ideas, opinions, and facts. Why don’t you spend a little time countering any of them. Honestly, what normal citizen interested in genuine enlightenment would make valueless and typical troll comments as you have. I expect more from the establishment than this.
Well here’s the complete scientific argument: it isn’t cooling, it won’t cool for millennia, because of human CO2 producing climate change.
The idea ‘it is cooling’ is just slapstick and I’m afraid I gave in to the temptation to respond in kind.
While there may be some indications that cooling might come, I agree that any definite predictions are as foolish as those of heat disaster. Too little is understood, by far, to make confident forecast and actual events might hinge on very small factors, unknown and unforeseen very far in advance.
Who cares what the actual data is. The sacred models have spoken.
The fact is that it is cooling, regardless of what you wish to believe.
As to whether it will warm in the future, that’s something only the future will reveal.
Relying on models that have failed every test ever thrown at them is something only a complete idiot would do.
“The fact is that it is cooling”: Evidence?
Your concept of a scientific argument is to assert baseless statements as fact and then run away from any discussion.
In light of all the horrible climate disasters that beset us presently, in which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025
Our trolls are so pathetic, that they have been reduced to just phoning it in.
and again, you have never, ever countered one of my posts with facts, argument, citation or anything except name calling.
When have I countered one of your posts with facts, arguments and citations? Every single time.
“Ohhhh no it isn’t!”
Now, there’s a convincing argument! Not one bit of substance. It’s like duelling with an unarmed man.
That isn’t an argument – you are just contradicting me…
Yours wasn’t an argument either.
Your hypocrisy levels are maxing out today.
Well, yes, that *is* what I was doing. I was pointing out that “no it isn’t” is not a substantive argument. No facts, just feelings.
Argumentation is using facts to counter another’s assertions. If it “contradicts” you, you better come up with facts to counter the other guy for you to receive any consideration of your assertions.
Griff want’s western nations to behead their economies while insisting it’s “merely a flesh wound.”
No, no AGW. It’s not a flesh wound at all, it’s a strength-building exercise that makes us healthy, wealthy, and wise!
Griff reminds me of:
“global cooling is coming”… exactly, and this is why they need to implement something now to “stop” global warming… so that when cooling comes (likely here already), they can say it was their mitigation tactics that saved the world (though it was all just part of the natural ebb and flow cycle).
this is very similar to covid where they started mask mandates and lockdowns in USA in mid to late Marc 2020… this is AFTER the so-called curve was already going down by itself due to seasonality. like that they can claim is was their mitigation tactics and not natural seasonality that saved the world.
Ohhh no it isn’t!
Climate change slows onset of next ice age | Climate News Network
‘Lethal ice age’ prevented by climate change? | Carbon Brief
Griffy – no-one has mentioned a new ice age except you. All we’re talking about is the natural cyclical process of going from a warm phase into a cooler phase – y’know there’s another warm phase on the other side of this next cooler phase, don’t you? Try not to be a delusional twit for all of your life – black and white thinking is for children and I’d assumed you were past that stage.
Btw – tell me again how we all ‘solved’ the ozone hole as it’s still there, just as big as before. Oh, it changes in size between summer and winter but it hasn’t grown significantly smaller on average.
griff is mentally incapable of forming a coherent and logical argument.
WE HAVE A BREAKTHROUGH HERE!! A BREAKTHROUGH! Griff is actually responding to his critics. Amazing.
This week’s griff apparently has more time on it’s hands.
griff really does believe that models trump reality.
Not just Europe and First World economies. Don’t forget what happened in Santiago, Chile in 2019 when the government tried to raise public transportation fares to pay for higher energy costs from the climate scam. And the best part was the COP and its attendant hoard of Pharisees had to get moved to a European capitol.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50106743
‘The Western policy elites, convinced by climate models that purportedly predict dire climate conditions decades into the future,…’
Politicians in the UK and EU, given recent events, given official reports by the likes of the UK Met Office, now work on the basis that dire climate conditions are already here, right now.
True. But these weather events are not the end of the world. They clearly do not require expensive changes to the global economy. They just require slightly higher infrastructure costs – adaptation. Proof is that they are already here and we aren’t all dying.
And as we have to upgrade our infrastructure periodically anyway because it gets old, that cost of adaptation is virtually nothing.
This article is talking about the hypothecated AGW that is actually important enough to spend resources mitigating against. That AGW doesn’t exist yet.
It probably never will.
Mitigation is so expensive it will always be more harmful than AGW. Even if our technology advances to the point where mitigation is cheap, adaptation will still be cheaper.
This is an economics and political question. Should poor countries suffer greater poverty to commerce with the rich?
The answer since the Winds of Change speech was “No”!
And it still is “No“!
They are massively damaging to infrastructure and the economy.
and the prediction is they’ll get worse.
the prediction we would see more of these events is already proven.
How many serious flood events can Germany/Netherlands/Belgium afford? One in 10 years? we already passed that… One in five? annually?
Since none of the predictions have come true so far, the fact that they are predicting dire things doesn’t alarm me.
The prediction is you will spew the same lies you spew all the time, because you are a lie spewing liar.
That is the right question to ask. And the answer depends on two things:
A) How much flooding there will be.
B) How much wealth we have to deal with the flooding.
We obviously can do nothing meaningful about A. We cannot control the emissions from China and India without WW3. We cannot control the emissions that have already occurred. And, of course, natural variation will still happen. We have no magic weather control device even if we did have a magic atmospheric trace gas emission control device.
But we can do something about B. We can seek to reduce costs to the economy. We can seek to stimulate industrial activity. We can seek to increase wealth.
All sorts of things that are the opposite of mitigating climate change. Cheap energy is vital to fighting the effects of the weather and climate change. Fossil fuel use does more to help than expensive wind and solar.
This is especially obvious to poorer nations. Richer nations can afford a bit of silliness. But it’s been life and death for developing countries for centuries. This is why every COP ends with the poorer nations refusing to take any action that increases poverty. That includes replacing cheap energy sources with expensive energy sources.
Your question is the right one to ask. And the conclusion is obvious. They can’t afford to waste resources on point A when they need to concentrate on point B. Germany/Netherlands/Belgium will not be able to maintain the climate silliness much longer.
It is a good point you make.
so you are saying that because the climate damage will continue to be high they can’t afford/shouldn’t afford spending on fighting climate change?
A good opportunity for the griffster to answer the longstanding question.
In light of all the horrific climate change disasters lately, in which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ends with the title characters fighting. It does not go well.
Every episode of the A Team had the title characters in the same position. But they always chose the option of building a tank before charging out to battle.
You have chosen to die in a hail of bullets. When there is a tank right there.
It is called cheap energy.
Describe this “climate damage.” Adverse weather events damage people and stuff in their way. Over at least the past hundred years there has been no measurable increase in damaging weather events. Consult Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. if you have any real questions.
There’s nothing new about the flooding events that occurred. Some of the floods shown in historical records, which go back some 600 years in that region, were a virtual blueprint for what just occurred, and far worse floods occurred in the distant past. The floods are nothing new, they are not “caused by climate change” they are just weather.
Lives were lost because incompetent “authorities” didn’t do what they should have done, which was to lower water levels gradually to increase the capacity of the reservoirs upstream of the dams (i.e., use the “flood control dams” for their purpose), thereby providing capacity that was needed for rain they knew was coming four days in advance (which would have reduced the intensity of flooding when the rains arrived), and by evacuating people from the threatened area, NOT because of “climate change,” the adult equivalent of the boogeyman.
The fact that flooding can cause a lot of damage has nothing to do with “climate change,” since that notion is nothing more than hyperbole. Efforts to “mitigate” what we are NOT in control of will cause far more massive damage to economies, living standards, and will cause loss of life far beyond the imaginary “climate crisis.” Think “freezing to death and starving to death in the dark.”
Get a clue – some of the same “scientists” (cough Stephen Schneider cough) told you global cooling was going to cause the weather to become “more extreme,” and he jumped on the global warming bandwagon too. So if both cooling and warming are going to make the weather “more extreme,” what do you believe – that the Earth was in some kind of “climate nirvana” from which any change meant “more extreme” weather?! And if so, do tell us what year those “perfect” climate conditions existed!
Ever look to see how many floods they have had historically? Hint–it has happened regularly over the centuries. That is, these are not new events. They probably suffer the same problems the US has–we continue to build expensive structures in flood prone areas, and continue to pave over ground that would absorb some of the water, thereby increasing the flood prone areas. Again, not a climate change problem. A stupidity problem.
“They are massively damaging to infrastructure and the economy.
and the prediction is they’ll get worse.
the prediction we would see more of these events is already proven.”
Griff you are a nutter!
Infrastructure built in flood zones and previous river beds has only been allowed since the end of the last war with totally predictable effects.
The River VAR in the south of France is well known to flood after violent storms which occur regularly over millenia.
Guess what?
They built a town right next to the river and paved all the usual water run off areas with concrete.
What do you expect to happen.
The people who put those houses in those places get flooded.
You can’t fix stupid!
It’s the same exactly as people building houses on the slopes of Vesuvius.
It’s 100% certain the volcano one day wakes up from its slumbers since 1944.
According to you stupid doesn’t do as stupid is..
Well you are the living proof that stupid writes as stupid is.
The fact that recent weather has not been out of the ordinary is totally lost on those who’s whole livelihood depends on convincing people that they are about to die.
The weather has though been very much out of the ordinary.
There have not only been new records, those records have broken previous records by truly amazing amounts.
There has been nothing at all unusual about the weather. Floods in Germany, there have been 5 or 6 worse in the same spot in the last 700 years.
Heat waves? Records only go back 100 years, so what?
And no, they have not been broken by huge amounts.
There have not!
One flood in the Ahr in 1910 and one flood in 1370…
This is off the scale for modern records/living memory/recent history… especially when you consider it affected 4 nations severely, in summer at that.
Wrong.
https://www.kreis-ahrweiler.de/kvar/VT/hjb1983/hjb1983.25.htm
Great reporting by those living through the disasters as they happened. It is tough to erase those firsthand reports in the Adjustocene. The lying liars, however, continue the lies by lying about “unprecedented events.” Real journalists would call them out for their continued lies.
My takeaway of the documentation of the contemporary observation is that people of the earlier periods did not build much on the flood plains. One of the observers noted that people built higher up and life returned to normal quickly after the various flood waters receded.
Lie by omission is the biggest lie of all, lie spewing liar.
It really is pathetic the way griff actually believes he’s entitled to his own facts.
“The weather has though been very much out of the ordinary.”
Ordinary being mid 17th century? or maybe 13th? did the Romans experience this ordinary weather?
Define ordinary chicken little.
Out of the ordinary in this century compared to last.
Meaningless.
The last ice age was out of the ordinary compared to this century or last century. Not sure when our time became “ordinary” except in the language of the church.
160 years ago was the Little Ice Age.
Has the world warmed up a smidgen since then?
Yes, thank God.
The past 5 days have been extraordinarily pleasant in Connecticut, out of the ordinary in the current 5 days compared to the last.
20th Century vs 19th? 21st Century vs 20th? Last 100 years? Over any 100-year period, the data I have seen proves nothing unusual happened during any long period … climate. Weather varies significantly on any timeframe.
See? Same lies you alway7s spew, lie spewing liar.
and your evidence I’m not being factual is?
I mean if we are debating climate why the invective?
Well, for starters:
“There have not!
One flood in the Ahr in 1910 and one flood in 1370…”
The simple fact you lie all the time stands on its own two feet, lie spewing liar.
Griff, you are not debating. When a debater (as opposed to a masturbator) is presented a direct assertion that has factual proof attached, the debater is obligated to present factual refutations. You have not done that so your comments are dismissed out of hand as being unsupported by prior published facts. And some yahoo’s published speculations are not facts, especially if they reference UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs. Normal science would have laughed the IPCC out of existence soon after its founding.
And more of the same lies spewed by the lie spewing liar griffie.
Straight to the name calling. That’s a good, grown up look for debate on climate…
It is simply your nomenclature, identifying you are the continual lie spewing liar you always are. No debate with you, all you do is lie.
Oh well, 2hotel9 is entitled to his opinion. Mine is that you are completely delusional, living in a fantasy world and completely incapable of perceiving reality – hence you are not really lying, it’s just that your fantasy world has absolutely no connection with reality. You need help with your mental health.
You’ve been caught in two blatant lies on this thread (the “solved” ozone hole and the floods in Germany). No one now takes you seriously. But we can laugh at you.
Politicians in the UK given official reports by the likes of the CIA and MI6, ignoring reports by the UN weapons inspectors on the scene, took us into Iraq on a hunt for non-existent or destroyed WMD’s. Just because an organisation has a nice fancy letterhead does not make them infallible or omniscient – they are subject to mistakes and bias just like everyone else. Examine the data on it’s own merits, look at the historical record and you’ll see that the claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
UN weapons inspectors?
Now there’s a joke.
BTW, the WMDs were found. WMD programs were also found.
Griff actually trusts UK and EU politicians. Blimey.
Their biased “given recent events” propaganda says so.
“the likes of the UK Met Office, now work on the basis” …..
that we don’t warn people correctly to evacuate when events which are known to occur regularly for the last 600 years are likely to be life threatening, …..
…because we can always claim after “it was 1 in 1000 years – AGW climate change caused”…(Merckel)….
Thus ran the straw man – now- thoroughly – discredited – crappomatic argument rolled out in Germany after 100+ people were killed.
Welcome to the new CCCP :
Climate Clowns’ Circus Parody
The last remaining masks are coming off.
How long till Phillips shows up to claim that this quote is either badly translated, or taken out of context. If not both.
This squabbling among “climate club” members, and those outside the club is just a sideshow, although it is a harbinger of how badly things will go in Glasgow this November. What “carbon pricing” does essentially is to punish success, while harming both trade and economic well-being. Think of the economic backwardness and desolation of North Korea. That is the direction we are heading towards. Humanity, under the guise of “saving the planet” is heading backwards.
I don’t think they are going to have much luck with imposing costs on other nations because of their CO2 output.
The other nations are not going to like it and will resist in one way or another, and I don’t think the United States is going to be signing off on this after the 2022/2024 elections. So it will be short-lived here in the United States. Biden and Team are going Down!
We can only hope. As with the previous administration Biden was part of, I’m “hoping for a change.”
Biden’s approval ratings are tanking day after day.
If he doesn’t fix the border situation, he will never hear the end of it.
Now we have Republicans and Democrats getting together to publicly urge Biden to do something, and they want him to hire Obama’s former head of immigration.
If Biden had any brains, he would follow their recommendations. And the infrastructure bill they are working on should include finishing the southern border wall. Are you listening, Republicans?
Biden thinks illegal aliens will help him politically, but I think it is going to be just the opposite, and the flood of illegal aliens at the border is going to harm Biden and the Democrats greatly, along with harming the nation.
November, 2021, is the beginning of the 2022 election cycle. One way or another, the COP shit is going to hit the fan. The Deep State and MSM will spin and filter it, but the average American voter will smell it.
Funny how leftists always embrace armed force to get what they want and cry when real human beings use armed force to stop their crap.
? where in this article is there any suggestion of armed force, let alone ‘leftist’ armed force?
The line about needing dictatorial powers might be a clue.
But those are only dictatorial powers for our own good, Mark. And only so long as there’s still an emergency. Any reasonable person can see that the climate is collapsing. Only clinically insane people would be against that. We will put them into concentr…er mental health rehabilitation centers.
Australia 2021, July – claimed – justification exceptional need for armed forces enforcement against anti-Covid confinement regs.
France gendarmerie to check compliance of anti-Covid restrictions at borders (Gendarmerie are ARMED police, part of the interior ministry and part of the armed forces).
German Polizei are all armed.
Russian police are armed, and instructed force compliance with regulations – which have nothing to do with Covid, including arrest and arbitrary detention.
The covid epidemic has been used as a cover for testing out populations compliance with anything governments of all persuasions think are neccessary with emergency powers.
In “democratic” UK, armed police are routinely used at airports and public buildings with arbitrary powers of search and arrest.
Have you heard of Lord Sumption?
He is the most vocal critic of methods used historically to limit freedoms in authoritarian countries for the simple reason “mission creep” takes over.
Most EU countries are applying legislation for a “climate emergency” which means they can use the same powers as for any other public emergency.
So by raising the prices they crush industries in the 3rd world as well as in the EU and US. Great save!!
Reiner Fuellmich — the lawyer filing crimes against humanity suits against the WHO among other bodies for their criminal use of experimental gene treatments — says that Deutsche Bank is one the world’s largest criminal organizations.