No archeological data can be found to support the outrageous idiocy of the Book Of Mormon. Yet many intelligent folks are still Mormon. And at the same time no evidence whatsoever can be found to justify this campaign to restrict industrial-CO2-release and yet here you all are swimming in this fraud. Totally and embarrassingly taken in by it. I’ll not say that intelligent people are still taken in by it the same way as they are taken in by the Book Of Mormon. Because in 2008 I no longer think thats true. To be taken in by this utter racket is proof of failed analytical ability.

But I still think you could look at these other rackets. Like this hoax of Joseph Smith. There are parallels here. Parallels for you nutters to learn by.

- man-made GHG emissions globally increased by 18.0%

- the countries which signed Kyoto increased their GHG emissions by 21.1 percent

- countries that did not sign it increased their emissions by 10.0 percent

- but the USA only increased its emissions by 6.6 percent: which

- proves the foolishness of the whole glowball warmening scam.

So by refusing to be party to setting targets which would add to the surreality of the whole Kyoto farce, PM Rudd is indicating that he is shaping up as a halfway decent Conservative PM. He’s acting as Howard-lite, with a younger face.

How his razor gang slashes government spending by $10Bn will be most interesting. He has promised to leave Defence and Education alone (like a good Conservative should), which leaves social spending and welfare programs to slash.

MarkL
Canberra

I recorded some objections to the earlier McKibbin-Wilcoxen stuff here (pdf), though I’m generally supportive.

I’m certainly not in favour of one of its main features which is giving away a huge opportunity to secure a much more efficient tax base than the ones we currently use. And I regard selling permanent entitlements as the same thing – given that the amount the private sector will bid for rights more than ten years out will be a negligible fraction of their social value.

Completely agree that a per-capita allocation of tradable emission entitlements (preferably sold by each government to their emitters) wold be a much better approach than this MAD Kyoto target nonsense.

I’ve long been a supporter of the McKibben-Wilcoxen idea of a two part emission allocation comprising a (possibly per-capita linked) permanent entitlement and a temporary emission coupon to be sold at a multilaterally-agreed dollar value (probably pretty low). It is a lovely device for capturing price expectations.

What’s most important from a negotiating perspective, however, is that it’s target-less and perfectly well-aligned with government incentives (fiscal benefits). I argued in favor of this in my submission to the (former) PM’s Taskforce.

A simple per-capita allocation has the huge advantage of simplicity over the two-part certificate and I’m not sure that (if the certificates are sold by governments) that it’s mechanically less effective than the M+W idea.

Best wishes,

Peter

the greatest challenge to human co-operation we have ever known,

Uh? Kinda like post-WWI but greater? Luckily, then, I guess we have a yardstick for failure…