The Star-Tribune, published somewhere in the United States, ran an article by Peter Passell, economics editor of Foreign Policy’s “Democracy Lab” and a Senior Fellow at the Milken Institute.
He comes to a radical conclusion:
The idea of a global grand bargain, in which emerging market countries would join the West in an ambitious, cost-minimizing containment program, is dead. The best hope, at least for now, is a pragmatic search for common ground, one that appeals to the angels but relies on self-interest.
A decade late and a trillion dollars short, you say? To paraphrase a former secretary of defense, you go to war with the army you’ve got, not the one you’d like to have.
I’d say the army the warmists actually have is past its best and anyway it has no weapons.
Views: 28
Richard, this article is not worth the read, mate. Some tosser economist prattling on about things like China’s emissions up 207% over the last 20 years. So bloody what?! CO2 is not a problem!!!
As long as guys like Passell have their snout in the AGW trough, counting emissions like some fad diet program, and perpetuating the myth of the West’s Sins of Emissions, then we will never break out of the Al Gore-imposed paradigm of the last 30 years. Which is of course, do as I say not as I do. And while you’re at it, furnish my bank account, buy my books, exchange carbon credits, pay carbon taxes, and pay me a million to speak at your conference (no debate).
What Mike said!
I agree with you, AK. And I struggled, like the both of you, to read the stupid article. Which makes the conclusion all the more remarkable, even if it is pragmatic. A died-in-the-wool warmist has given up hope of achieving an international agreement on emissions reductions. As he should. Just another sign of the nails being hammered into the AGW coffin. It makes it less and less likely that the “example” being set by the EU and us (hurrah!) might proliferate.
next please….
Climate that MIGHT happen as speculated at the end of this century but most probably wont (not from human cause anyway) just isn’t an issue of import in the global context anymore.
Actual present day disasters – both geologic and economic – have gazumped the “greatest moral issue of our time”.
The deal and fund renamed something better descriptive (and more honest) might gain some traction nowadays e.g. United Nations, Poor Countries Subsidy Scheme (UN PCSS).
But then again…….