Speaking from New York, Virgin Blue Boss Sir Richard Branson has said transport and energy companies must be at the forefront of developing environmentally friendly business strategies and has pledged to invest US$3bn (£1.6bn) to fight global warming.
Branson said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years.
It seems that Branson recognizes anthropogenic global warming is an issue that can potentially be solved through new technologies and he plans to invest in new renewable energy technologies through Virgin Fuels.
This approach is consistent with the approach advocated by the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Also known as the AP6, this group includes ‘kyoto dissidents’ Australia and the US, as well as China, India, South Korea and Japan.
Together these countries account for about half of the world’s GDP, population, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The partnership was announced in Laos in July last year and they met for the first time in Sydney in January.
The AP6, like Branson, recognise that the solution to anthropogenic global warming is potentially in the development, sharing and promotion of new and improved technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Of course this approach will also solve ‘the peak oil’ problem because once we move beyond our dependence on fossil fuels it won’t matter how much oil is left.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer you make regular pro-AP6 posts but I don’t understand why you support AP6. What do you expect AP6 to achieve, realistically, that Kyoto won’t achieve?
The Kyoto Protocol DOES include specific provisions for (in yr words) the “development, sharing and promotion of new and improved technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” so you can’t pretend that the AP6 has a unique monopoly on that approach.
Indeed Kyoto acknowledges that technological transfer on its own is often insufficient to achieve real change so it includes additional means to provide supporting institutions for sustained change. Kyoto has, for eg, the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation for economies in transition. They also have created a Special Climate Change fund and an adaptation fund and they have a well developed means of managing grants and concessions through the Global Environment Fund.
At the general level, what superior path do you expect AP6 to take?
*Why do you support AP6 climate change action if you’re unsure that AGW is taking place? (you just said in previous thread that you believe in natural climate variation but yr unsure if AGW if occurring).
**If you believe some mitigating action is required but Kyoto Protocol arrangements are unlikely to make an impact on warming, you must expect AP mechanisms to achieve more reductions in GHGs than Kyoto would? (How will this occur if AP6 lacks enforcement mechanisms or GHG limits? These issues are the precise objections the AP6 nations have against Kyoto).
***If the Asia-Pacific mechanisms can’t create new markets (which they can’t without creating enforceable, binding caps on emissions – a primary objection of the AP6 nations to Kyoto), then they must rely on direct government intervention such as regulations or direct financial incentives to industry? Why do you support this? Isnt it inherently the most inefficient and anti-free-market, anti-liberal option? Or do you think moral suasion will be sufficient?
Oh dear!! You neglected to mention that Branson urges Aust to sign Kyoto!
Seems he doesn’t think his position is consistent with AP6 at all!!! Nice try to draw a connection between the 2 though. My questions to you above are more pertinent than ever. This position needs explaining cos it’s as foggy as can be from where I’m standing. Please Explain!
Branson declares that he will pressure the Austn govt to support Kyoto.
Hi Pinxi, I was trying to be positive. There is nothing positive about Kyoto.
You weren’t you were spinning and spruiking in a most hapless and obvious manner.
Quite a nerve to try and spin Branson’s call for Australia to sign kyoto into a plug for AP6. You must have a low opinion of your audience.
Technology and Kyoto are not mutually exclusive, i believe branson knows this. Perhaps he also knows that the words ‘technology approach’ in the mouth of AP6 proponents is simply a euphemism for ‘do nothing until our favoured technology (coal) is able to compete and win in a carbon constrained marketplace’, ie winner picking.
Steve,
As regards my motivations – you are wrong.
But I am keen to understand why you are of the opinion that Branson’s plan is inconsistent with the AP6 and why you and Pinxi are so opposed to the AP6.
Jennifer what do you find positive about AP6 in terms of real expected outcomes to mitigate/adapt to AGW?
What positive promises do you find in AP6 that don’t exist in Kyoto P?
Does AP6 require govt funding of industrial activities and technologies?
Do you support govt funding for the development of CO2 sequestration technologies but don’t support govt funding of alternative energy development?
Biggest problem with Kyoto is that it differentiates between nations. China and India may have ratified but they are expected to do nothing. They are not part of the solution.
Any trading system – to be effective must bind everyone.
And I’m all for some government support for alternative energies.
Jennifer I can’t see that AP6 can achieve anything other than govt support (inefficient) of a narrow set of industrial actions; PR to give an impression of doing something to address AGW whilst actually sitting on the fence; engaging ONLY in technological development and transfer with major trading partners ie for trade benefits for a small industrial sector; meanwhile deepening our future international obligations by refusing to accept responsibility for being the/one of the highest per capita emitters of GHGs from which the heaviest AGW impact will fall on the poorest nations where people already struggle to survive and where there are few resources to adapt. I also fail to see how AP6 arrangements will address the shortcomings of the KP or deliver any real impact on AGW.
I’ve answered your question in good faith. My questions to you above remain unanswered and I would genuinely appreciate your explanation.
How do you think that non-binding AP6 arrangements will fix that “distributional” shortcoming of the KP?p
Why do you support AP6 if you remain unconvinced that AGW is real?
Pinxi,
Let people innovate/ encourage innovation and we will move beyond the oil age.
If you want a trading scheme involve the whole world.
I am completely underwhelmed by the importance of Branson’s donation to research and development. Humanity’s experience since the Stone Age has proved that it’s beneficial to be energy-efficient.
Actually, the inventions most influential in the progress of humanity have increased energy efficiency. Branson has *not* discovered this anew, and if anyone thinks he has, they don’t come out of their burrows very often.
The popularity of AGW has driven lots of dollars into research, and as usual, the money gets “diverted” to other things. That’s the usual money trail for the eco-fascists.
In spite of the fact that Branson’s money is earmarked for ameliorating the CO2-emitting howls of protest from gonzo AGW alarmist neo-conservatives, this money might actually accomplish something.
Accomplish something, as usual. Contrary to what Luke, Pinki etc. inveigle, the fact is, better technology improves things. Air and water pollution are declining, and the human lifespan in countries where environmentalists have not stifled development has dramatically increased.
My applause for Branson is guarded. If he drops $200 million for a study of how solar-powered, sustainable astral cosmic crystal vibrations cure AIDs and malaria, Greenpeace might get happy, but others won’t. Studying crank topics is another route used by activists for pocketing funds.
I look forward to seeing an accounting for funds.
All too often, corporations lay out the cashola to buy off their critics. This is called “greenwashing” or “greenpeacing.” The donation is trumpeted to the press as responsible, pious, whatever, but it’s just to pay off the Green Mafia.
Branson has a fleet of airplanes that produce plant fertilizer. Ecologians don’t like that, but in exchange for $$$ they’ll leave him alone and “study alternatives.”
Anyone who thinks Branson is being noble doesn’t understand how activists are bought and paid for, and a good part of the process is extortion.
jennifer you haven’t clarifed your support of AP6. My questions to you above are fair, polite and valid.
Yuo can let people innovate without AP6. The most efficient pathway is via market mechanisms. Will AP6 be economically efficient and will it deliver real outcomes or be a waste of money?
To allow innovation, simply remove fossil fuel direct & indirect subsidies and institutional supports for a good start. Create a fair playing ground because we don’t have one at present
schiller, unlike you, Branson probably understands that the companies with the best longer-term performance are those who ensure their actions are socially and environmentally responsible. Armed with this realisation, financial markets are taking greater notice of such aspects, not just green consumers. They suspect it might simply be an indicator of good (effective) management ability, ie good strategic business managers focus on a broad range of issues and hence get better performance from their investments and people.
You are confabulating again pinxii, you dont know what Branson understands or to what degree “companies with the best longer-term performance are those who ensure their actions are socially and environmentally responsible” and you will need to supply detailed and specific evidence to support these assertions of yours.
Strikes me Branson could have spent the profits on his next crazy stunt. He chose not to. Like any rich philanthropist I have no doubt he will enjoy collecting kudos for his green vision – and if anyone reading this thinks that makes him a shallow/selfish person, well, you have just proved you are not qualified to comment on his actions.
Ever do anything to help the environment yourself?
All this “is there any real AGW?” stalling is laughable in today’s tsunami of evidence. Another 10 years and the proof will be crashing down around us. Another 20 and you will be apologising to your grand-children.
Jennifer, you say “It seems that Branson recognizes anthropogenic global warming is an issue that can potentially be solved through new technologies and he plans to invest in new renewable energy technologies through Virgin Fuels.”
I think it’s simpler than that. Branson – whose total investigation into anthropogenic v. natural warming could probably be written on a postage stamp – is a flamboyant businessman who knows a bandwaggon when he sees one.
I’m sure that he has worked out that being seen as a “greenie” is a wonderful way to make money these days. I can’t blame him really because others are getting in on the act too. Call me cynical but I suspect that the “expenses” that Virgin deducts before declaring their profits will be a tad inflated in future.
PS. Beilby – it seems that you don’t know that the cherry-picking of anecdotes, unsupported claims, complete spin and the output from models don’t really add up to a big hill of beans when it comes to rock solid legal-type evidence.
Jennifer, you are being disingenuous. You know perfectly well that the major achievement of Kyoto (if Australia and the USA eventually adhere to it!) is to establish a solid foundation for further initiatives, and that includes bringing the major developing economies such as China and India into a broader agreement.
You could draw an anology with free trade, in which multiple rounds of GATT (now WTO) bargaining over many years have resulted in further agreements.
If wealthy countries like Australia and the United States are not prerpared to be responsible global citizens then how can we expect developing nations, whose myraid problems dwarf ours, to act responsibly?
Steve,
On what basis would you consider China to be developing and us developed?
I reckon we will be left behind fairly soon even without “tying both our hands behind our back”.
Kyoto is a crock, Germany knows it, New Zealand knows it, Russia always knew it …lets forget the pious hope.
You are either naive or disingenous.
BTW it seems we haven’t got very far with free trade …I think the problem might be Europe and the US?
Oh please Jennifer. Australia has a GDP (PPP) of $31,900 and China $6,800 according to the CIA factbook. See https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html
Kyoto may well be a crock but it is still the only game in town. It is now up to Australia and the United States to show leadership, sign Kyoto then push for a far more comprehensive and effective treaty.
And as Eban Goodstein has demonstrated, those corporate shills who say we can’t afford to act do not have a leg to stand on. The corporate shills have drastically overestimated the cost of environment protection in almost every case, including CFCs, benzene, halons, strip mining, asbestos and the list goes on. see http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/goodstein-e.html
Come on Jennifer. Listen to your conscience and stop playing the piper’s tune. You are way better than this.
Why support AP6 climate change action if you’re unsure that AGW is taking place?
To support AP6 you must expect AP mechanisms to achieve significant reductions in GHGs. How do you expect this to come about? ie what tangible outcomes do you expect?
btw: China is rapidly industrialising nation, ie rapidly developing. Consider mean & median living stds or GDP per capita. But they have serious socio-economic & envirnmentl internal issues, economic transition issues that will hold them back, besides which they can’t grow indefinitely at current rates, particularly without external demand for which they need harmonious trade relationships. they prob have some pain coming dont worry too much about that Jennifer.
Developing new technologies and fuels is good, but not the same a fighting ‘global warming.’ The money is going to ‘Virgin Fuels.’
Here is an objective up to date presentation on the climate system, given by Roger Pielke Sr on the 21st September:
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/presentations/PPT-69.pdf
Abstract:
“The needed focus for the study of climate forcings is on the regional and local scales. Global averaged forcings are only be important to the extent that they provide useful information on these space scales. Global and zonally-averaged surface temperature trend assessments that are used to assess climate forcings, besides having major difficulties in
terms of how this metric is diagnosed and analyzed, do not provide significant information on the climate forcings on the regional scales.
Examples of the major role of heterogeneous climate forcings, including how their effects teleconnect globally, will be presented at the meeting. In terms of climate forcings on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.
In addition, the concept of where climate system heat changes fits into the broader perspective of climate variability and change will be discussed. Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling.
A conclusion of our research is that to seek to significantly influence regional and localscaleclimate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.”
Pinxi,
You have a lot of trouble retaining information -or perhaps like Steve you are disingenuous.
I have written many times at this blog and I am on the public record (see transcript of ABC TV 7.30 report) saying that I am concerned about the elevated levels of carbon dioxide. But I see no evidence of a climate crisis.
It is a good idea to look to new future source of energy – to avoid peak oil and further raising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. To quote Chrisian Kerr: “I’m not a climate change sceptic. I’m not a Chicken Little, either. Science shows us that global temperatures have varied throughout the earth’s history. And science has also shown itself more than capable of overcoming remarkable challenges. Sorry if that disappoints the apocalyptically-minded.”
Steve,
No piper – and it is deeply insulting to suggest that what I write here is some how deliberately misleading and not what I genuinely believe to be the facts of the matter.
Regarding China , I have never understood the far right wings enthusiasm and excitement over this country…
They jump up and down every time they open up a new Lois Vuitton, Prada or Gucci boutique in Shanghai or Beijing.
You never hear them complain about the human rights issues or the environmental problems.
Yes, I have heard the far right persons state that they rather live in China than in Sweden, amazing.
I say like the New York Times:” China is the worst example of supercapitalism combined with communism”.
The EU have used trade as a lever to foster environmental and social policies in poorer countries ie they give preferential trade treatment to countries that meet their human rights and environment criteria incl Kyoto. NGO’s like GP and WWF influence EU policy which in turn excludes many poor countries from competing on price. This is clearly contrary to WTO rules and has in turn led to the collapse of WTO negotiations with the result that EU subsidies and tariffs will remain c/o GP and others.
Ann,
I wouldn’t like to live in China, and I think they have an appalling environmental and human rights record – and they are probably the next super power.
There is no way Australia should give them a ‘leg up’ (so to speak) by signing Kyoto – unless they do.
Pinxii will agre with me on that one, she has already stated that she supports the removal of “indirect subsidies and institutional supports for a good start. Create a fair playing ground..”
Hey Paul Biggs – maybe you guys are worth talking to after all (OK bit too arrogant – so I’m sorry). Hat-tip on the Roger Pielke Sr powerpoint. Really good shite and thanks for sharing it. Well done and worth discussing.
Schills – pls don’t label me as techno-phobe – I’m surrounded by it and love many aspects of it. Some technology is very good, some harmful, some useless and some evil – we need to be discerning – I’m sure your good self even prefers a relatively chemical free GM crop than retching from crop duster fumes.
And for the umpty-umpth time – I’m not suggesting an apocalypse – but I think there is plenty of room for moderate sensible concern. Lots of bad climate variation already in the world – the Earth is not that nice already – more extremes – even a few % worse is not that convenient and can affect millions periodically.
And a free kick for the contrarians –
interesting article in today’s New Scientist (18/Sep/2006) on “The Sun may save us from global warming”. Worth the trip to the newsagent. But not saying I agree with it all but fascinating nevertheless. But beware the last paragraph.. .. ..
“There is a dangerous flip side to this coin. If global warming does slow down or partially reverse with a sunspot crash, industrial polluters and reluctant nations could use it as a justification for turning their backs on pollution controls altogether, making matters worse in the long run. There is no room for complacency, Svalgaard warns: “If the Earth does cool during the next sunspot crash and we do nothing, when the sun’s magnetic activity returns, global warming will return with a vengeance.”
So perhaps we all might agree we do need some good climate science and we do need to keep an eye on things meteorological !
I agree whole-heartedly rog that EU & US agric subsidies are unfair and unjust and indefensible in the context of the trade barriers against the same agricultural products and commodities and low-tech manufactured goods that IMF & aid policies encouraged poor countries to get into. I say ‘in the context of…’ because I don’t want to give the impression that I think agric subsidisies are outright ‘bad’ – it depends on how they’re used and the context, which is clearly unfair in US & EU right now. Aust can be hold its head high on that count.
However rog be aware that the EU has make great inroads to untie its aid and the EU gives more ODA than does Aust. There has been general pressure for many countries to untie aid from trade-related issues hence more & more funds are directed via big NGOs and UN approved activities or employ other mechanisms to focus on real outcomes for the recipient nation.
rog you’ve conflated the issues incorrectly. Given my recent statement (becuase several times I’ve substantiated my claims to you with research or detailed explanations & you’ve just replied with unthinking 1 liners) that the onus is on you – well, the onus is on you to show that the Kyoto mechanisms threaten or tie aid to funding or concessional loans or that there’s a direction connection between Kyoto and the current situation with the WTO Doha agenda. I know for certain you can’t show such effects, btw, because it’s a rubbish claim.
Jennifer, if it’s your position that there is “no evidence of a climate crisis” then WHY OH WHY OH WHY do you support AP6?
AP6 is going to cost money and make use of govt intervention – something all of us ,heh, pro-free-markets liberally minded see as inefficient. Why do you want to act on elevated CO2 levels via AP6 if there’s no threat of a climate crisis?
You say “it is a good idea to look to new future source of energy” but AP6 proposes investment in CO2 sequestration activities. Why do you support this if there’s no risk from climate threats?
Jennifer, btw, I think I have the answer for you! Given your rejection of Kyoto on the basis of distributional concerns re: who wears the burden, ie that the industrialised countries would pay to limit GHGs while the developing countries get a free-ride – I’ve realised the solution that would answer your concerns. You said (something to the effect) that the creation of new markets has to be global.
So the proposition that I”m sure all the world could agree to would be that we calculate an ideal global threshhold for GHG emissions, then divide it equally by headcount (base it on 1990 or yr 2000 headcount if you like to stop the rapid breeders from cheating). What do you say to a worldwide per capita GHG cap with global market trade? Surely it would be a very efficient market with so many traders.
Pinxii your interpretation of what is of substance is rubbish.
There are a multitude of examples where the EU have used environmental issues as a lever for trade;
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23616/story.htm
GERMANY: January 29, 2004
BERLIN – A senior European Union official has hinted at a possible trade-off in the coming months between Russia ratifying the Kyoto environment treaty and the EU easing Moscow’s path to joining the World Trade Organisation.
“There are signs of a political link between finalising the WTO negotiations and Russia’s ratification of the Kyoto protocol,” European enlargement commissioner Guenter Verheugen told a German parliamentary hearing.
“In political contacts it has been noted that one could see it as a political package and I’m quite confident that on both issues we will see movement” in the first half of 2004, Verheugen added…”
Can someone answer my fairly basic question: if we dig up some bauxite and smelt the alumina into metal, and that aluminium then ends up in the engine block of a nice new Audi, who is expected to account for the energy that went into producing the aluminium? Australia or Germany? I use aluminium as the example because it’s called solidified energy and everyone likes using it. Most of the energy encapsulated in that Audi engine block comes from Victorian coal. Do we pass on the responsibility for that coal energy with the exported metal? If not, are the highly advanced, resource consuming countries riding on the backs of resource economies such as ours? Hmm, more than one question really.
Pinxi,
Good ideas.
But to work out the threshold we should probably first work out what is the best/right amount of C02 to have in the atmosphere.
And I like the idea of working it all out on a per capita basis rather than by country.
The Russian experience should not be forgotten, the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Ministry for Industry and Energy analyzed the Kyoto proposal and found it to be not scientifically sustainable. They also analyzed global warming and found that if it did eventuate it would be of nett benefit to Russia.
However the EU demanded that they sign Kyoto to join the WTO. Signing Kyoto allowed Russia to sell off its carbon credits, some say they are worth $2.5B.
Joining WTO gave Russian exports greater market access to WTO countries, gains were estimated to be worth $8 or $10B.
Additionally WTO membership would enhance Russia’s international political stature, it would join the rest of the world’s largest economies in the setting of world trade rules.
Boxer, I asked a couple of similar questions, in a number of places, a few months ago. I could not get an answer.
How can anyone promote Kyoto? How could we think of agreeing? We have no idea what we are talking about.
Until we know who is charged with the responsibility for which rmissions, I believe we are being HAD by people with another agenda.
I may be a bit paranoid, but as the strongest promotion is coming from the left, & green side of the political spectrum, I think there is a bit of self flaguration involved, with out a full understanding of the total cost to Australia.
Anything which the French will agree to, will most definately, be bad for us.
How are the countries that signed up for Kyoto getting on with their emissions, compared to say, the US? Isn’t the US doing as well or better? (Excluding the former Soviet Union).
On a side note, if the US does ratify Kyoto, as I have heard rumoured, who will the eco-mental collective then have to blame for all the bad weather? Surely President Bush will be off the hook?
Boxer, Australia accounts for it, and the audi engine manufacturers see a negligibly higher price for aluminium (australia is already meeting is target remember?).
We could try end use accounting, but that would be much harder to keep track of, and why bother when the market looks after cost distribution anyway?
Steve, that sounds great, except when we are forced to reduce our emissions, to comply with kyoto requirements, at a later date perhaps.
The smelting then goes to China/India/Africa, who have no emission limit.
We are a major looser, industrially, economically, & in every way. The total world emissions remain the same.
This is a TOTALLY usless tool for emission control.
It is an excellent tool for the transfer of wealth to the chosen economies, [asian], & for increasing the loss of industrial capacity in Australia.
Carbon credits offer yet another market for the extremely wealthy to manipulate for their profit.
The Australian left think, & I don’t necessarily disagree with them, that Howards industrial relations laws are designed to bring their income inline with Asia’s.
Well watch out workers, Kyoto will get you there so much quicker than Howards minor efforts, it’ll leave your head spinning.
This is one area where the interests of the industrial, & academic left, are diametrically opposed.
Hasbeen, that’s assuming that China and India and Africa don’t have their own emissions limits in any subsequent round.
It also assumes that an increase in electricity consumption in Australia cannot be compensated for with a subsidy to industries we may wish to protect – indeed, concessions for some industries such as aluminium is built into the proposed design of the state-proposed emission trading scheme. (And lets not forget the subsidy that aluminium smelting already gets here in the form of cheap electricity contracts, on top of electricity that is already very cheap by world standards)
Lastly, your scenario assumes that that a slight shift in electricity prices will be enough to have the aluminium industry fork out millions to shift its operations to other countries, countries that may not have the multitude of other benefits offered by Australia, such as political stability.
A lot of assumptions, one could almost accuse you of being an alarmist with that kind of extreme scenario description. And alarmists of all persuasions are something of a drag aren’t they?
And lets also not assume that “industry” is limited to only those that are hurt by emissions mitigation, like aluminium. There are plenty of australian enterprises that would benefit from emissions trading.
Natural gas is a very good example, though probably not the first to spring to mind.
“Carbon credits offer yet another market for the extremely wealthy to manipulate for their profit.”
What are you, some kind of market-hating communist? 🙂
Headline – “Wanted: engineers with a deep sea history” from an article on our skills shortage, W/E Australian Oil & Gas supplement which outlines salaries and premiums also tax levels commanded by specialists at this critical time for local exploration. Minister Macfarlane said there were a record 190 permits managed offshore now in the leading article “Exploring a Challenge”. Over the page John Tilley writes “Consumption drives pump prices”. Stats show a growing trade imbalance and so on, we should all be so busy hey
Steve, do you realy think China, India, & Africa are as stupid as you would have us. There is no way they will accept emissiom limits?
The WTA will not let us subsidise our industries, subsidies are confined to the French, & US agricultural producers.
Where have you been for the last 15 years Steve?
Haven’t you noticed the continual loss of industrial capacity & jobs from Australia?
In the 60s& 70s, I used to supply plastic raw materials, & technical information to 17 companies involved in the manufacture of consumer goods, from TVs to hair driers. They are all gone now, although some still survive as importers.
In the late 90s, I helped a mate transform his business from manufacturer, to importer, before he went broke, trying to compete. Even I was surprised that we could land, into store, chrome plated brass products, for less than the cost of the brass feed stock here.
I could not watch, him & his last 3 factory hands, get drunk together, the day they were made redundant.
We can destroy our industry, & skills base, without tying both our hands behind our backs.
I must admit, I would love to know which is the first & second, & third, industry, thats not extractive, thats going to benifit from Kyoto. Please note, I said industry, not enterprise. I’m sure there will be lots of great jobs for admin types & “consultants” in the attend gravy train.
Am I a communist? Well, its illegal for me to buy milk from the dairy farm I pass on my way to the shop. The small crops farmer can’t sell direct to the green grocer. I can’t represent my son in court, while he’s off defending the country.
All signs of a centrally planned economy, so mabybe I became a communist, with out being told, at the time.
I was in Kyoto last week. Lovely temples, by lakes, amongst green hills around the outskirts, but the centre was a fume-infested nightmare of cars, buses, and grey concrete boxes. The people were very helpful and polite. Has anyone tried modelling Kyoto as a start? Are the pine trees on the surrounding hills growing faster? Has Kyoto actually warmer over the past few decades? Are the cherry trees bloomimg earlier? Are the koi in the temple lakes growing faster? Come on you climate gurus, go to it.
davey there was months back a discussion & a proper paper with research n all on the growth of jap trees. Go forth knowledge guru, get to and find it
So we produce the aluminium that other countries use and we carry the cost of accounting for the carbon emissions. Noting that a tonne of Al metal emits 23 tonnes of C during production. Meantime the country consuming the Al and making the Audi engines closes down a pile of antiquated East German industries and claims the credit for the reduction in CO2 emissions that would have occured with or without Kyoto. (But then we have our own ways of cheating too don’t we?) Furthermore, Audi then sources its Al from a developing nation that is not expected to account for its CO2, because their Al is now cheaper than ours.
Appreciate that end-use accounting for CO2 would a complex issue, but that does tend to overlook the fact that energy consumption is driven by consumers, who drive their alloy-engine Audis to the Al Gore movie, and then blame the evil multinationals for bringing on the end of all things.
If this is rational economics for you Steve, then I have a deal for you. I’m actually the son of a Nigerian cabinet minister and I need to park US$15.3 billion in your bank account for a week as I prepare to buy the Sydney Harbour Bridge and then sell it to the Macquarie Bank. Please post all your bank account details on this blog and I’ll make you into a millionaire by the end of next month.
Just wondering if profits from Virgin Atlantic are arrived at after payments to Virgin Group and Singapore Airlines – much like Novamedia who distribute profits from lotteries after expenses incl their fees.
At least Branson is acknowledging that his jets use a lot of liquid fuel and emit a lot of CO2. So he is making an attempt to tackle that problem and has mentioned butanol, ethanol from cellulose and such ideas as being options worthy of further R&D. If this is entirely enlightened self-interest, then let’s have more of it. I am encouraged by the fact that he didn’t just blather on about solar and wind power to make himself feel good. If he makes profits along the way, then perhaps his group of companies will last long enough to make a real contribution to solving the problem. Unlike the Kyoto protocol.
It could be a deflective manoeuvre, he is not advocating use less fuel – his train just broke the London-Glasgow record. Travellers can now travel on Virgin without the guilty feeling that their jaunts might be contributing to warming the planet.
I am waiting for the predictable lefty cry of “shill”
Domo aringato Buttswipe,
I shall have a shufti. Hai. Doozo, if not find, you can herpu?
Have had a shufti Buttswipe. Can only find some Nature gossip about hay fever increasing due to global warming (Williams 2005). The claim may be compared with an article in the New York Times about a decade earlier, saying that hay fever in Japan had increased due to conversion of diverse forests to cedar mono-culture for timber reasons (Sterngold 1995). The cedar remains unharvested, due to Japan’s access to cheap timber from other countries (including Australia). Now there’s an opportunity for Sir Dickie Branson – buy up all that Japanese cedar and convert it to ethanol, so solving hay fever, global warming, and the oil crisis simultaneously.
Refs:
Sterngold, James (1995) Japan’s forests are man-made disaster. New York Times, Jan 17th.
Williams, Rachael (2005) Climate changes blamed for rise in hay fever. Nature, 434, 1039.