Asymmetrical Information

I'm trying to decide if the brownie points I earn by visiting your website first are worth the cold fury of Glenn Reynolds for not starting my blogabout at Instapundit.

The Instaman seems to be a relaxed sort of fellow. What Assymetical pique might you risk if your blogabout did not start here?

I hit you before I hit Instapundit; you've got quality, he has quantity.

Kyoto was never more than a junk science anti-Capitalist scam. The radical leftist idiots pushing this nonsense simply wish to destroy civilization and have us revert back to our cave dweller existence. This issue was also used by America’s enemies, the Old Europeans, to damage our economy and cause us a great deal of embarrassment. The hypocritical Russian leadership now concedes that the economic impact of the Kyoto silliness would devastate their already very weak economy.

Am I saying that there are no problem with pollution? Of course not. However, viable environmental solutions to these continuing challenges must be premised on prudent and rational thinking and not ideologically motivated rhetoric.

David Thompson wrote:

Kyoto was never more than a junk science anti-Capitalist scam. The radical leftist idiots pushing this nonsense simply wish to destroy civilization and have us revert back to our cave dweller existence. This issue was also used by America’s enemies, the Old Europeans, to damage our economy and cause us a great deal of embarrassment. The hypocritical Russian leadership now concedes that the economic impact of the Kyoto silliness would devastate their already very weak economy.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Russian Federation stand to benefit from the Kyoto Accords? My understanding of the Kyoto Accords (as much as such a complicated treaty can be said to be understood) was that nation-signators were required to reduce their emissions levels by a certain amount and they were allowed to purchase emission credits from other nations which had exceeded the required reductions. There was an article in Reason suggesting that because the Russian economy was doing so poorly and they had to shut down so many factories, that would have meet their goals and been able to sell emission credits thereby bringing in new capital.

Anyone else heard anything like this or remember reading the same article?

BTW: while I am unsure about the Global Warming theory - having gone from being a strong proponent of it in my environmentalist days to being a skeptic to now being unsure - I do agree that the Kyoto Accords were a bad idea. There is no evidence that it would have "solved" the problem (assuming that it is a problem and a man-made one and that it is solvable) but it is clear that it would have greatly harmed our economy. Moreover (and I agree with David Thompson on this point) it does seem that this was designed to give the United States a political black eye for not agreeing to it (even though it seems clear that most of the other signators either had no intention of ratifying or following it but nevertheless attack the United States for at least being honest about not wanting to go along with it) or perhaps to seriously harm our economic competitiveness.

“....in my environmentalist days “

I suspect that you are still a sincere environmentalist! The crazies should not have a monopoly on this most legitimate term. Only a fool is unconcerned about the environment. It's unfortunate but we are now compelled to add some sort of adjective to this word whenever we refer to those who place a high priority on the quality of our natural surroundings. I can’t stand it when the media refers to the goof balls as the “environmentalists’ implying that the rest of us are eagerly seeking to destroy the Earth.

Thorley, Colby Cosh's essay touches on the point about Russia benefitting from the treaty, towards the end: Moreover, the jury within Russia is apparently still out on the pure economic benefits, which are supposed (by the Europeans) to be self-evident. And later, In the end, I expect he [Putin] will conclude that it is best for Russia's future for Gazprom and like companies to expand and streamline their enterprise rather than wallow in a tarpit of uncertain returns from GHG emissions credits.

I suppose the two main questions about the treaty from Russia's standpoint are:

1) Is there much money to be made in emissions trading?

2) How much will Kyoto limitations hamper future Russian growth?

There's a lot of talk about emissions trading, but unless the US ratifies the treaty, I don't see a lot of trading going on. The treaty uses 1990 emissions levels, and lumps all of Europe together as one entity (as I understand it). The US's emissions are currently well above our 1990 levels, but Europe as a whole is not (because of the economic contraction in Eastern Europe). Russia is also below its 1990 emissions. So if the US doesn't join the treaty, who is going to buy the emissions rights?

And if there's no money to be made on point #1, then why accept any limits for point #2?

Another point that Colby Cosh doesn't make is that Russia is one of the few countries on the planet that would unequivocally benefit from a rise in global temperatures. (I'd think Canada is another, or maybe the other).

Greenland might be better off as well. It might even make it...errrmmm...green...

If I remember correctly, Kyoto would reduce global warming by 0.06 degrees C in 2050 when the models predict a 1 degree C rise in temperature. Since the global temperature fluctuates by as much as half a degree, it's not clear if the effect of Kyoto is even measureable. To get here you have to believe the models which have a very poor track record predicting actual climate. The satellite data, http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html, which is very high quality, doesn't indicate that there's been any global warming in the last thirty years, unlike the ground based measurements, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station_data/, which show warming but have a natural warming bias built-in due to the heat island effect.

PJ touches on a point I've been thinking about. Given that Europe and Russia are already below their target levels, what is the benefit of them ratifying Kyoto, other than allowing some bureaucrats to pat each other on the back for a job well done? How many participants are left that have to do anything like, for example, actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

As far as Canada and Russia benefiting, isn't global warming supposed to lead to droughts in Alberta and typhoons in Siberia (or maybe it's the other way around). And I could swear I've heard something about a plague of locusts.

What is the benefit to Europe? American money from trading emission credits. The same thing they are telling the Russians. But again as noted earlier, if we ain't buying, they aren't selling. As Russia needs to build its industrial base back up, Kyoto might put them in the position of needing to BUY emission credits, from Europe, rather than the reverse. Which again means less funds for factories, etc.

Of course, there are the climate models where global warming reverses the Gulf Stream (or something like that), thereby causing a near ice-age in Europe (which is mostly at the same or higher latitudes as Canada and Siberia). Could that be the reason Eurocrats are getting so panicky about Kyoto? Nah... If this is actually a possibility, Kyoto is too little, too late.

After that spate of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism we've seen in connection with the Iraq war, the thought of permafrost in Paris and Berlin just warms my heart...

Comments are Closed.