Friday
Jun062014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Climate policy and the poor
Jun 6, 2014 Climate: WG2 Climate: WG3 GWPF Tony Kelly's final paper, a GWPF briefing note entitled "Climate Policy and the Poor" has just been published.
The changes imposed thus far have not dealt with the risks of climate change through a sensible, steady and sustained improvement in energy and other technologies and have therefore failed to address the problems of the here and now, of which the abject poverty of large numbers of people is perhaps the most pressing. In this, the consequences of the Kyoto Protocol have been immoral.
Reader Comments (8)
The real problem is that we are raising energy prices as we are entering a new Little Ice Age. Only when the excess death rate from cold exceeds ~ 100,000/annum will the people wake up to the real politics of this, eugenics as wealth and power is concentrated in the elite.
@ Spartacusisfree
"Only when the excess death rate from cold exceeds ~ 100,000/annum will...." the ultimate CO2-reduction policy be deemed effective.
Just finished reading it. It is not long but it is impressive. He lays out the awful distraction that the alarm over CO2 has been. Awful because it has wrecked lives. Awful because it has led to resources wasted in fatuous actions. Awful because there are many more important and more urgent improvements to be made to the environment and to the lives of so many people. I hope the reading of it takes place far and wide, and quickly too. It could help bring the madness to an end. Well done Tony Kelly. What a fine parting gift you have given us all.
As they say, you couldn't make it up.
Carbon dioxide makes the world greener, and Greenpeace loathe it.
Comfortable western environmentalists wish to take the plough-share of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and beat it into a sword with which to punish poor third-world farmers for merely existing.
And Lord Deben-Gummer, a devout catholic, sees no problem with this.
MH, Deben had a featured article in the Catholic Herald three weeks ago, explaining that 'the science was settled' and that (he thought) the Pope would shortly make a pronouncement. My letter querying his line (and suggesting the last time a Pope took sides in a scientific controversy it wasn't a tremendous long-term success) - was not published.
"the last time a Pope took sides in a scientific controversy it wasn't a tremendous long-term success"
:-)
Or, as the wonderfully outspoken Senator Earl Butz once said (in a slightly different context), "he no playa the game, he no maka the rules".
I agree that this is an impressive document, which is short enough for even politicians to read and perhaps understand.
It contains at least a couple of unfortunate errors.
On page 7 it says "About 5000 organisations using 6000MW of electricity per year". I presume that should be "6000MWh of electricity per year".
Also on page 7 it says "Feed-in tariffs These encourage households to generate electricity themselves and, where there is a surplus, to feed it into the grid, from where it is supplied back to other consumers". In fact feed-in-tariffs are not just for households, as the feed-in-tariff applies to facilities of up to 5MW capacity. Hence the feed-in-tariff is used by businesses and developers to build large renewable energy facilities, including wind farms, solar farms, anaerobic digesters etc. Most of the electricity generated is not for self-use, but is predominantly for export to the grid.
The paper makes a very good point about how the Kyoto protocol is harming the poorest people by raising food prices and making electrical power beyond their reach. Recognizing and publicizing the harm of policy is one of the key gaps that the GWPF seeks to fill. Unfortunately it has all the signs of a first draft. It does not appear to appear to have undergone the excellent review process as outlined by David Henderson a few days ago.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/5/30/the-bengtsson-affair-and-the-gwpf.html
I will hope another author will draw on Anthony Kelly's insights and enlarge on some excellent points made. Two in particular
First, the 8.7 million people dying of malnutrition.
Second, the 2.6 billion without access to proper cooking facilities, with adverse impacts on health.
Pushing up world food prices and the cost of energy can only serve to slow the eradication of these appalling issues.