"Protect the planet"? The planet is a hell of a lot bigger than I am. Who is protecting me?

If I am adequately looked after by those in power, I am willing to contribute some of my wealth to help preserve the planet; but if my dollars start to disappear on half-baked carbon trading schemes designed to prevent a process which a) may not be happening b) if it is happening, may not be stoppable and c) if it is stoppable, may not be necessary or desirable to stop, then I will have proportionally less to contribute to those long-term aspects of the planet that I think are worth preserving.

Rich countries look after the environment better than poor ones for a reason; richer people have more discretionary income to spend on it. Deliberately impoverishing people to 'save the environment' is like prodding a tiger to help it relax.

I must admit that I'm surprised that this article hasn't got a greater response from OLOers.
This article has really gotten to the real essence of the AGW debate,
when push comes to shove the greatest interest isn't about the science but rather myopic self interest.

While not a conspiracy in the normal sense of the word, it's about protecting one's pecuniary and lifestyle interests.

Big Businesses, particularly the 'big polluters' (arguably the biggest cause of AGW), are using fear tactics brinkmanship to sway the population to their (big polluters) interests. They do this by argument by extremes.

As non breathing non emotional entities these same big businesses have no other motive but to survive and prosper, regardless of the costs to the humans. Any moral imperatives are theoretically supplied by the humans that are these businesses. This is done by ridiculing their own principals i.e. that nothing is free there is a cost for every thing, whether we count it or not.

Unfortunately, these same people tend to be hobbled by the needs and internal pressures of the organization, to comply to combined will of those who directly gain from the organization. The psychology books are full of variant examples of humans susceptibility to this type of influence.

I find it interesting that many will blame population, migration citing a finite state, country even world, yet refuse to see the demonstrable same problem in 'magic pudding' (endless growth, business as usual) economics.

The author implies, that this denial or failure to deal with the consequences (the real costs, the science ) of our economics will guarantee its catastrophic failure. Common sense goes on to suggest that smaller changes now will reduce the need for greater, more devastating and more cost ones, later.

AGW is expressed in a range not absolutes, I'm hopeful for the lower end of AGW. there is no reason that the changes now need to be as dramatic and horrific as painted by those with vested pecuniary interests.

Yet another B class book add.

When will these dills realise that much of big business, including Shell Oil, & British Petroleum, & dozens of similar companies are backing Copenhagen. They don't care that the so called science has proved to be a con.

With their wealth they stand to make more money out of carbon trading, & derivates, than they ever have flogging coal, & oil, & it will come straight out of the pockets of you dills.

How true are You? A perfect statement Peter Vintila.

"While climate science is subjected to minute scrutiny, liberal economics enjoys unlimited license to deflect, derail and distort.

And just to make sure it is out here in the open, I repeat the web-address

http://www.postkyoto.org/

So as to draw your attention to the course and brochure,

http://www.postkyoto.org/brochure.pdf

Especially the possible outcome should the world leaders fail to act, and address the prevention of what you have stated in session 5 of the on line "A five-session course ".

Week 5. Climate change war & climate change peace

A neglected issue is that sooner or later climate change-induced shortages and dislocation are likely to cause wars - wars over the planet’s diminishing life support capacities as human societies lose their grip on peaceful dispute resolution processes.

A number of other observations follow from this:

• future climate wars are more likely if current climate change resolutions are weak and competitive in spirit – and that’s where they seem to be headed;

• future climate wars will seriously undermine the basis of any subsequent post-war treaty making endeavours – if, by then, treaties still have a point.

Trust is always war’s first casualty and without trust, no treaty of any kind. Once they start, climate wars are unlikely to stop. Nor can there be much in it for winners:

• future climate wars will actually exacerbate climate change because of the savage carbon intensity of modern industrial weapons system. It’s significant.

Thank You Peter. Your innovation using the online course is a note worthy resource - mate!

http://www.miacat.com/

,

No mention fo Climategate.The science is settled.CO2 is the murderer of climate.All this based on circumstancial evidence."We cannot account for this cooling period and that is a travesty"

They cooked the books at the Hadley Centre and now the media tries to ignore it!

Hasbeen,you are correct.The corporates want the ETS since they can then make more profits on the derivatives and taxes.It will not reduce CO2 by one molecule.

The biggest problem is that those that are pushing for the reduction of CO2 emissions are also against nuclear, the only technology capable of replacing coal.

When the greens stop agitating against both the problem and solution, the world might take them seriously.

Arjay,

What cooling? "climategate"? (read more science) What about the topic not the obfuscation. Having sat through 10 (and continuing)uni lectures recently on the AGW *science*, I now have a better understanding of why it's irrefutable.

SM,
Standard Political obfuscation, don't like the topic being discussed, change it one you like? The topic was about the the truth V the time bomb *economics*, not Nuclear power. *I'd love to see your defense of economics not being based on a fallacy i.e. 'magic pudding' principal.*

I'd also be fascinated to hear MM tell us what is wrong with the *science*, so much so, that he hasn't even sought the relevant advice from the scientists involved! (his admission on 'late line.) How then his is informed opinion?. BTW I've never heard him offer a cogent defense of the economics it's self rather a one sided sizzle. And this is the alternative PM (in God we trust...isn't that the US motto and boy it works well for them...not)

Gee, a brainwashed examinator is a really scary prospect.

Run everybody.

The "Unfortunate Truth" on an Emissions Trading Scheme is that the Carbon Credits created can only be traded in the international financial markets. The very same market,operated by Brokers,Hedge Funds and Futures Traders who recently made food and oil unafordable, prior to sending the world broke using massive amounts of borrowed money to trade "Financial Instruments". Are we really now proposing to give these same people the power to price our power?For mine its "tell em there dreamin".

Examinator,

I'm not changing the subject. As the article is on the economics of climate change, and until such time as renewable power can provide a reasonably priced base load, energy reduction targets for 2050 are not possible without a massive reduction in consumption or a considerable nuclear programme.

Until the effects of climate change mitigation start to really bite, nuclear will be the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

I know that most greenies would like to talk about anything but nuclear, but sooner or later it will become a reality.

France with its nuclear programme is the only country in the world to have lower emissions today than in 1979 with a growing economy.

Hasbeen

I started to run two years ago. I've hedged my bets though. I live on a yacht and if the worst comes to the worst can always moor at my kids place and to their first floor balcony.