Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for July 2006

Europe Cheats on Kyoto

By

Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are thought to be responsible for the elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide that are thought to be driving global warming. The Kyoto Protocol has been considered an important first step in reducing emissions with European nations agreeing to cap emissions under a trading scheme that kicked off in January last year.

But with Germany wanting to exempt coal (!) and the United Kingdom probably emitting about 92 percent more methane than it declares on top of the price tumble of late April, Kyoto doesn’t seem to be working.

This is how the Herald Tribune in a piece titled ‘Germany to Reduce Carbon Curbs’ reports Germany’s intentions to exempt coal:

“The conservative leader, Chancellor Angela Merkel, and her Social Democratic coalition partners agreed to cut the emissions limit by nearly 3.4 percent, but at the same time the cabinet has given an exemption to all new power plants, including coal, one of the worst industrial pollutants.

By allowing the power industry to opt out until 2022 before joining a program in which companies are given permits for emitting up to a certain amount of carbon dioxide and giving the permits free of charge, critics said the Merkel government was undermining EU efforts to combat climate change.”

Surely whoever is setting the rules for carbon trading in Europe won’t let the German’s get away with this?

A couple of weeks ago there was an article in New Scientist title ‘Kyoto promises are nothing but hot air’ in which Fred Pearce explained how Britain was not being honest with its emissions accounting:

“Under Kyoto, each government calculates how much carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide its country emits by adding together estimated emissions from individual sources. These so-called “bottom-up” estimates have long been accepted by atmospheric scientists, even though they have never been independently audited.

Now two teams that have monitored concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere say they have convincing evidence that the figures reported by many countries are wrong, especially for methane. Among the worst offenders are the UK, which may be emitting 92 per cent more methane than it declares under the Kyoto protocol, and France, which may be emitting 47 per cent more.”

It would seem the UK and Germany are treating Kyoto as something of a game in which it is OK to bend the rules and even cheat a bit?

But there are implications and not only for the environment. Robert Watts explained in an article title ‘Carbon Trading Leaves a Nasty Smell’ in the UK Telegraph last Sunday that Kyoto is costing hospitals:

“Open Europe’s report highlights the little-known fact that almost 150 schools, universities, military bases and even some prisons have also been obliged to sign up to the [carbon trading] scheme because they have a power station or boiler with a capacity of 20MW or more.

Whereas most private sector organisations have surpluses [of carbon credits], the opposite is true of organisations in the public sector. As a result, many hospitals, universities and army bases have been forced to buy carbon credits from businesses to meet their allocation targets.

Our tables show that, while some companies are making millions of pounds, a huge amount of taxpayers’ money is being spent buying carbon credits from the private sector. Open Europe estimates that this astonishing situation will cost the NHS [National Health System] about £1.3m a year between 2005 and 2008.”

While Kyoto hasn’t delivered much for hospitals or the environment in Europe, according to ABC Online Greenpeace is trying to force the concepts on South Australia and New South Wales.

—————–
This is the second blog piece in which I have suggested Kyoto is turning into a game for cheats, click here for the piece written a month or so ago.

SourceWatch Needs Watching

By

SourceWatch gives the impression it’s an honest organisation keeping an eye on individuals funded by industry involved in public relations and that “Unlike some other wikis, SourceWatch has a policy of strict referencing, and is overseen by a paid editor”.

It begins its entry about me, Jennifer Marohasy, by stating that:

“Dr Jennifer Marohasy is the Director of the Environment Unit at right-wing Australian think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. She is a climate change skeptic, denying that climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.”

No, I’m just not sure that greenhouse gas emissions are the principal drivers of the current warming.

Sourcewatch goes on to use the following quotes from me to support the above proposition:

“DR JENNIFER MAROHASY: It’s ambiguous. It’s not clear that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide levels. But let’s move beyond that argument and let’s start talking about how we can adapt to what will be a different climate in the future.” …

“DR JENNIFER MAROHASY: I actually think that it’s good if we can get beyond this debate of whether increase in carbon dioxide levels are driving more extreme climate events. I think that we need to move beyond that and accept and recognise that whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change.”

From the last quote it seem pretty clear that I believe there will be climate change. Yet they’ve categorized me as a climate change skeptic?

Interestingly they can’t get the link to my blog correct, this is the URL they use https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/Jennifer .

The link to my much quoted monograph titled ‘Myth & The Murray’ is also wrong. Why would they use the following URL
http://www.ipa.org.au/Speechesandsubmssns/jmwarrenspch.html ?

I’ve given a lot of talks over my career including to environment groups, but interesting they have chosen to highlight the only one ever sponsored by the United States Government and that was in about 1997 which is nearly 10 years ago.

I guess they are trying to give the impression that I’m a right wing propagandist?

Kyoto Won’t Help Poor People Much: Bjorn Lomborg

By

It is often claimed by environmentalists that ‘stopping climate change’ is an obligation the world’s so-called rich and developed nations have to the poorer developing nations.

Thus the Kyoto protocol is all about ‘developed nations’ reducing carbon emissions, while countries like China and India are exempt.

If the Kyoto Protocol was really about the environment, then surely everyone would be expected to reduced emissions, particularly the really big emitters like China and India.

Yet according to Bjorn Lomborg, the Copenhagen Consensus, and Ambassadors from the United Nations, combating climate change through the Kyoto Protocol is a poor investment for humanity.

Lomborg begins a recent opinion piece in The Observer titled ‘Climate Change Can Wait, World Health Can’t’ by making the point that combating climate change through the Kyoto Protocol has a social value of less than a dollar for each dollar spent.

He goes on to repeat the findings from the Copenhagen Consensus that:

“The economists found that spending $27bn on an HIV/Aids prevention programme would be the best possible investment for humanity. It would save more than 28 million lives within six years and have massive flow-on effects, including increased productivity.

Providing micronutrient-rich dietary supplements to the malnourished was their second-highest priority. More than half the world suffers from deficiencies of iron, iodine, zinc or vitamin A, so cheap solutions such as nutrient fortification have an exceptionally high ratio of benefits to costs.

Third on the list was trade liberalisation. Although this would require politically difficult decisions, it would be remarkably cheap and would benefit the entire world, not least the developing world. A staggering GDP increase of $2,400bn annually would accrue equally to developed and developing countries with free trade.”

I understand that neither the European Union nor the United States are showing any real commitment to trade liberalisation at this current final Doha Round of World Trade Organisation negotiations in Geneva.