The big multinational green groups and foundations, big industrials, big financial houses, and of course big governments have succeeded in pouring countless billions into global warming policy.

But they have ultimately failed to win the scientific debate because the data keep not supporting their theory, and the policy debate because their daft solutions are political suicide.

The great shame about Mark's argument, basically that anything Australia can do would be futile in the absence of total international agreement and would cause more economic damage than the benefits it might offer, is that the case gets its main public support from climate sceptics (like Mark, I believe). Unfortunately this weakens its impact simply because it gets discounted by the rest of the population. In fact, the case stands up even if one accepts everything that, for example, the IPCC says about climate science. Of course, one can also add to the argument that there is as yet no real alternative to fossil fuels, apart from nuclear power as the source for the 40% of our energy that we use in the final form of electricity. As for the other 60%, mainly liquid fuels and chemical reductants, there are still no effective substitutes (even if electric vehicles for personal transport are accepted in that category).

Mark Lawson here;
Jardine - I certainly don't disagree but its not so much a question of political suicide but bearing political pain at all.. the undeveloped countries are in it for the grants and usually don't have the governance systems of internal control to control emissions anyway. The developed countries by and large, aren't interested in serious effort.

Tombee - dunno its discounted because I have also expressed skepticism about everything else in this area. Although almost everyone can see that an international agreement is not in sight, the public haven't made that leap to asking why individual countries are bothering to reduce emissions, probably because they haven't been hit over the head with this point. As the global warmers who dominate the debate aren't about to do it, that will mean a lot of money wasted.

Mark Lawson,

"Hands up those who think that there an enforceable, workable international agreement to limit emissions is still possible? "

Excellent question. I don't and I'm strongly persuaded an international agreement cannot be achieved if it will damage economic growth.

I think I've shown clearly why carbon pricing is highly unlikely to be achieved in Part 2 of "Why the world will not agree to pricing carbon": http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/

Comments and critique would be greatly appreciated.

In short, it seems the most widely accepted and cited models of the economic impacts of GHG emissions, abatement cost, carbon pricing and social cost of carbon show that carbon pricing would be a significant net damage to the global economy for all this century and beyond. If this is correct, rational negotiators will not sign up. Part 1, here explains why: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/26/cross-post-peter-lang-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed-part-i/

The same considerations apply to any international agreement that will damage countries' economies.

Jardine, K Jardine, and anyone else from all persuasions on this issue could I ask you to read those two posts and contribute. I am keen to get some debate going on this really important matter - before it's too late.

‘morning Mark.

Sadly your article has little chance of making the MSM which is where it should be, this is a terrible indictment of our MSM, especially with so much devastating CAGW news emerging from Europe.

Even our scant coverage of this EU decision fails to make it clear that this is conditional bid to try to secure a global agreement, that the decision by EU “leaders” was in fact by the EU Commissioners, an unelected body and not by the EU parliament. Current targets are however still binding for the UK because they legislated them, oops?

EU Commissioners, many of the EU MEP’s and national politicians have only three things motivating them currently. The first is to extract whatever votes they can from the remnants of the “Green Blob”. Secondly they are motivated to maintain a slow decline in the CAGW mantra in order to avoid the blame and consequences as legislators of this scam. They would like to be retired before it finally goes poof!

Thirdly and critically, it has just dawned on the EU that they are the only ones left to carry the disastrous industrial, economic, social and environmental costs of their climate policies, without a Kyoto replacement they on their own and truly stuffed.

The way I read it politically, the EU Commissioners are launching a set of targets that they know full well will never be acceptable, which effectively gets Europe off the hook for further binding commitments.

They are also fully aware that even with a binding agreement on emissions, the entities created to support Kyoto no longer exist. Emissions Trading mechanisms, the global renewable index RENIXX and the subsidies from taxpayers have already collapsed.

Frighteningly, this leaves only one source of funding which is increased tariffs on the consumers. Which nicely explains why so much EU industrial might is moving off shore to low cost energy regions.

The highly (publicly) funded Green Blob and its political clout remains the only thing keeping this alive for as long as possible, which suits both the Green Blob and the politicians.

Mark and your curmudgeonly mates - with your usual negative diatribes against anything threatening the 'fossilocracy'.

1/ You need to get real re the RET - it is and will actually save consumers money- it drives electricity market prices down by more than the cost it imposes on consumers. Not that it would matter id it did cost a few cents a kWh more - small price to pay for energy security. Why don't you get on a bandwagon against State network operators and their gold plating of networks - their costs comprise 40-50% of our energy bills

2/ You're right that the <1% with big stakes in Australian coal power generation companies wish the RET never was - it reduces their profits and indeed is designed to eventually displace them with clean generators. But as for the rest of us - it's not costing us anything; in fact it gives us a great sense of satisfaction - cleaning up our energy consumption.

By the way there's nothing stopping the likes of AGL and Origin from changing their generation / retail businesses to fit the flexible, clean energy supply that consumers want. They were actually starting to do that quite well until Origin got into coal seam gas and AGL bought dirt cheap brown coal power stations and now they reckon they can make more by staying with fossils and crushing renewables.