Global Warming Bubble

[jmichna]

Junk Science: The Global Warming Bubble
Thursday, March 20, 2008
By Steven Milloy

You didn’t have to be a rocket scientist in the 1990s to figure out that speculative investment in dot-coms with no revenues would be disastrous. The same goes for lenders giving mortgages to borrowers with no jobs, no incomes and no assets.

So after surviving the tech bubble and while trying to extricate the economy from the housing bubble, why are we bent on heading into the global warming bubble?

Just this week the Environmental Protection Agency issued its economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill that is being considered by the Senate. The EPA projects that if the bill is enacted the size of our economy as measured by its gross domestic product would shrink by as much as $2.9 trillion by the year 2050.

That’s a 6.9 percent smaller economy than we otherwise might have if no action were taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For an idea of what that might mean, consider our current economic crisis.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, GDP actually increased by 0.6 percent, yet trepidation still spread among businesses, consumers and the financial markets. Though the EPA says that Lieberman-Warner would send our economy in the opposite direction by more than a factor of 10, few in Congress seem concerned.

For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively. And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge.

The EPA says that by the year 2095 — 45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent — atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be 25 parts per million lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation were implemented.

Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.

Sacrificing many trillions of dollars of GDP for a trivial, 45-year-delayed and merely hypothetical reduction in average global temperature must be considered as exponentially more asinine than the dot-bombs of the late-1990s and the NINJA subprime loans that we now look upon scornfully.

So who in their right mind would push for this?
More

Got any carbon offset credits for sale, bUNky?

[Powerman]

I'll leave my opinions on GW out of this. This though is something I have a problem with. I don't go as far to get into evil conspiracies, but have any of you noticed the shift?

Every since "AIT" haven't you noticed the onslaught of commercials for everything green. Allstate is going to plant a tree for you. Chevron is helping the environment. It seems there are as many commercials as pharmaceutical ads. Is it just me, or is there a rush to create a market where none existed a year ago? I think to compare this to the dot.com bubble is right on the money.

Billions will be thrown at great products, none of which will do a damn thing for GW.

[jmichna]

More on Lieberman-Warner

Enviros promise ‘massive’ litigation over climate rules

“Litigation over [Lieberman-Warner climate] rules will be massive,” said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel of the Sierra Club told an American Bar Association meeting on March 14, according to Carbon Control News (Mar. 14).

CCN reports: “The pending bill, S. 2191, introduced by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), is silent on key regulatory issues that EPA will be left to sort out, Bookbinder said. ‘In some cases [the discretion] is warranted and will really require agency expertise,’ he said. But in other areas, the bill punts crucial decisions to EPA because Congress doesn’t ‘want to have to deal with it.’

The bill passed the Senate environment panel late last year and is slated for a Senate floor vote later this year. Bookbinder has compiled a multi-page list of agency rules mandated by the Lieberman-Warner bill that could face legal challenges over their implementation. The list includes rules to be developed within one year of enactment, establishing a greenhouse gas registry, imposing excess emissions penalties, permitting commercial-scale underground injection of carbon dioxide as well as finalizing regulations for distributing various types of greenhouse gas credits, allocations and transitional allowances for adaptation.”

It’s bad enough that Congress would enact the Lieberman-Warner nonsense in the first place, but then to have its implementation shaped by enviros via litigation is even more worrisome…

Okay... setting aside for an entirely different discussion whether we should even strive to affect or control global warming... Lieberman-Warner - by best estimates - will have essentially no impact on reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, and will harm our nation's economy... now it seems that the profit takers in this debacle will include the legal profession. Leeches.

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by jmichna

More on Lieberman-Warner
Okay... setting aside for an entirely different discussion whether we should even strive to affect or control global warming... Lieberman-Warner - by best estimates - will have essentially no impact on reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide, and will harm our nation's economy... now it seems that the profit takers in this debacle will include the legal profession. Leeches.

That's the whole point. That's exactly what happens when the government get's involved. Take Health care. If you really think there are problems and people are suffering needlessly, the last thing you should want is for the government to get involved.

The only thing the government is good at is offering inferior solutions for higher prices. I have always said, GW is an easy thing to solve. Simply pay more than twice what you pay now for energy and watch as America is destroyed in economic competition with the rest of the carbon using world.

My real problem is that if you believe it is a real problem, then you should hope for a real solution. Yet everything today is about feeling good without actually sacrificing. What the f*** do I want to pay All State a couple of buck to plant a tree to offset my vehicle emissions for? How about I plant a tree and DRIVE LESS! Al Gore buying carbon offsets? WTF? I don't have a problem with him using jets and SUVs. That's just the cost of doing business these days. However, his mansion should be a shinning example of all the incredible energy saving and renewable solutions. He should take that prize money, and the fortune he makes by speaking on the subject and LEAD BY EXAMPLE. But no, he wants to play shell game and say he paying for it with this hand while he slips it back into his other pocket.

The saddest thing is that Congress will pass some form of this POS so that they can look good and everyone can feel good, while American's are forced to deal with yet another mind numbing bureaucratic mess.