Imagine an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting where all the members showed up drunk and with extra cases of wine, beer, and booze to keep them happy. Now imagine that that same group of drunks was empowered to make trillions of dollars worth of economic decisions for everybody in the world. This absurd scenario swiftly summarizes the United Nations Climate Change Conference beginning today, and lasting through December 18, in Copenhagen.
Despite the fact that the entire conference is founded on the belief that human economic activity, especially flying and driving, is emitting levels of greenhouse gasses that will soon kill us all, plutocrats from around the world have marshaled over 1,200 limos and 140 private planes to travel to and around Copenhagen over the next two weeks. When they are not participating in the world’s oldest profession, conferees will be negotiating over a successor treaty to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which obligated most developed nations to reduce their greenhouse emissions by 5 percent below 1990 baseline levels by 2012.
So how did those Kyoto emissions reduction pledges turnout? According to U.N. data, between 2000 and 2006, the 27 European signatories actually increased their emissions by 0.1%. Canada even saw a 21.3% emissions rise. Meanwhile, the U.S., who was not bound by the treaty since the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 not to subject our economy to costly regulations that China and India were specifically exempted from, actually reduced our emissions by 3% over the same time period.
One key reason Europe failed to meet their Kyoto obligations was the tremendous cost of reducing emissions, estimated at $67.75 billion to $170.84 billion through 2008. Because of the high costs of reducing emissions, Copenhagen is seen, especially by Europeans, as an opportunity to force the U.S. to join the other developed countries required to reduce emissions. The economic stakes are huge. Nick Main, global managing partner for climate change and sustainability at the consulting firm Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, tells the Los Angeles Times: “One of the reasons that this negotiation is difficult is it really does involve issues of competitive and comparative advantage between countries. This is really an economic debate of, ‘How do you pay the costs?’”
And the costs to our economy would be huge. A Heritage Foundation analysis of Waxman-Markey found that this energy tax would have serious implications throughout the economy. For a household of four, energy costs (electric, natural gas, gasoline expenses) would rise by $436 in 2012 and by $1,241 by 2035, averaging $829 over that period. Higher energy costs would increase the cost of many other products and services. Overall, Waxman-Markey would reduce gross domestic product by $393 billion annually and by a total of $9.4 trillion by 2035.
The Obama administration is sadly mistaken if it believes they can unilaterally submit the American people to such an economic disaster. Even Senators within the President’s own party have expressed grave concerns with the administration’s Copenhagen promises. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) recently wrote the President: “Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.”
With unemployment still in the double digits, now is not the time to subjecting the U.S. economy to costly new rules, especially rules that are not equally applied to developing countries like India and China.
Quick Hits:
- The Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency could rule as early as today, that businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases must make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions.
- The Senate is expected to vote today to legalize taxpayer fund abortions in Obamacare.
- A net oil importer just five years ago, Brazil is set to begin extracting tens of billions of barrels of oil from off-shore oil fields that will soon give them one of the world’s biggest oil reserves.
- According to The Washington Post, the federal government now spends one out of every four dollars on health care.
- Today, December 7, we honor those who were killed in the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and those who defended freedom in the years following. Thank a World War II vet today and remember those we lost.
Dog and Pony Show: An elaborate presentation orchestrated to gain approval, as for a policy or product. See also: China’s carbon dioxide emission cuts.
One day after President Obama announced he’d make a trip to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December with a pledge to cut our nation’s greenhouse emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the Chinese State Council said it would cut the country’s carbon intensity, its “carbon emissions relative to the size of its economy”, 45 percent by 2020. But here’s the kicker:
“The goal is essentially where China would get to anyway in the next decade, according to the International Energy Agency. That has prompted some energy analysts to pan the Chinese pledge as insufficient.”
Senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations Michael Levi called the announcement disappointing, saying, “It does not move them beyond business as usual.” For those thinking that action by China would spur the United States to aggressively approach cuts of its own or pass a cap and trade bill, this isn’t quite the action they intended.
Even with a 45% reduction in carbon emissions per unit of GDP projects to their emissions being twice ours in 2020. For reference, the U.S. and Chinese levels of emissions output were about the same in 2006.
Despite heavy investments in wind and solar Heritage Research Fellow in Asia Economic Policy Derek Scissors asserts that “Diversification from coal has failed and will continue to fail. Coal now provides 70 percent of the PRC’s energy and almost 80 percent of its electricity, with both figures higher than they were a decade ago. These shares may barely shift for decades to come.”
China prefers to measure carbon emissions relative to its size of the economy mostly because it is less verifiable than a pure emissions target. Since carbon intensity is measured in relation to gross domestic product and Chinese statistics are often altered or censored, it will be easier for China to “meet” its goals.
To actually make a difference on the earth’s temperature China, India and the rest of the developing world would likely have to revert to emission output levels that are pure fantasy. But these countries have repeatedly stated that they won’t trade economic growth for emissions reductions, especially when these countries face serious environmental threats.
China’s announcement shouldn’t spur the United States to take action. The U.S. has become dramatically more energy efficient over the past few decades without sacrificing its economic growth with carbon caps. We shouldn’t start now nor should we demand other countries to do the same.