Comments on: The carrot and stick approach to climate change agreement

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:27:40 +0000

Ken,

1) I don’t think carbon tariffs are contra WTO, but I’m not sure.
2) It’s ridiculous to say that the west couldn’t deliver major carbon emissions reductions without sacrificing lifestyle. Double energy prices – like we doubled fuel prices in the wake of the Iraq war – and do it again and you’d go a long way to dealing with the issues. If that’s done with a tax it wouldn’t cost you more than a year or two’s growth in the next twenty. Leaving 18 out of 20 years with normal growth. It’s basically a doddle. But it’s hard with Oppositions stoking the resentment of the populace.

By: Rafe Champion

Rafe Champion — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:39:36 +0000

On the topic of storing nuclear waste in outback Australia, is there any rational argument against this potentially very lucrative business, or just nimbyism gone mad?

Quite likely nuclear power is the best long-term hope for the world and Australia could make megabacks by storing the worlds waste.

By: conrad

conrad — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:10:45 +0000

“Developing countries already profit enormously from the industry and application of the developed West, because they can piggyback on the technological innovations it took centuries to invent and perfect”
.
I don’t know what round-eyed version of history you’ve been reading, but some places that arn’t “the West” weren’t such comparatively backwards places in the last say, thousand years (your “centuries”), and some places in “the West” wern’t such advanced places either (like the US and Australia, for example). No doubt with that sort of comment, you probably go around telling your friends how smart white people like Gutenberg were for being the first to invent the printing press, and probably that white people invented paper too.
.
“and sell their products and services into prosperous developed international markets that would not otherwise exist.
.
An alternative view of this is that if they bothered to develop their own internal marks instead, they’d be better off. No doubt when China does this and gives up buying US magic paper, people will complain about that too.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:38:26 +0000

I only meant ironic in the context of KP’s last paragraph. Of course it is exactly what you would expect.

As for the reactors, I think it is something to do with coal being mainly in Germany and Britain. Also, the reactors were almost all set up in the 50-early 60s – there is substantial resistance to them today.

By: Tel_

Tel_ — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:15:19 +0000

Patrick, nothing ironic about it.

France is acting primarily out of self interest: they have one of the largest nuclear power industries in the world, a substantial hydro-electric power industry, and they are keen to be a major supplier of both hydro and nuclear technology to other countries. Quite likely their socialistic system is what gives them the capability to run a lot of nuclear reactors, whereas in other countries you would get NIMBY resistance happening.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:37:54 +0000

Ironically, the strongest proponent of such sanctions (or tariffs, as the case happens to be) is the rather socialistic France.

By: Pedro X

Pedro X — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:34:34 +0000

China’s emissions are growing at 6-7% per year. They are already the world’s largest emitters. Sanctions against China would be suicide for the US. The US itself may well not sign up to targets. The Democrats have just lost New Jersey. Blue Dog Democrats are going to be very wary of passing anything now that might lose them their seats.

It will be interesting to see if any strong Global Climate deals pass, let alone ones with sanctions.