Nearly 20,000 heads of state, environmental activists, reporters, Al Gore, and other assorted nitwits gathered in Bali, Indonesia to plan for Life After Kyoto, because the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. Despite the lack of effectiveness of Kyoto, the burning need for governments to seize dictatorial power over their economies drives the movement to replace it. That’s why it was so important to burn so much jet fuel to get to Bali, instead of merely video-conferencing and saving tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
The result? Well, they agreed to a “framework” or “road map” – presumably similar to the fabulous plans which led to peace in the Middle East – and to meet again in 2009. Irwin Stetzler analyzes for the Weekly Standard:
Even the emerging favorite in the United States and Europe, a cap on emissions followed by a trading of permits, is a hide-the-cost device: costs of compliance will be passed on as higher prices. So the blame will go to auto manufacturers, supermarkets, electric utilities, and oil companies, the applause to politicians. All so politicians can avoid the transparent device of a tax on carbon or carbon emissions, which can, after all, be offset by reductions in other taxes.
Which brings us back to Bali, where the negotiators had two main tasks. The first was to formulate an agenda that keeps America in the emissions-reduction game, which they seem to have accomplished by a combination of pressure and the application of a dollop of fudge to the final draft agreement. The second was to attract the developing countries, most notably China and India, into the game, which they have accomplished with promises of goodies for developing nations–these from developed nations that have yet to honor their pledges of financial support to Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether the agreed “roadmap” will prove as useless as the one designed to bring peace to Israel remains to be seen. Words on paper are not quite the same thing as real reductions in emissions.
* * * * *
Nor will renewables provide a free lunch. Offshore wind power, the poster-boy du jour of Greenpeace, “is more expensive than gas-fired,” notes Alan Moore, who is no less than the managing director of National Wind Power. And those awful windmills might ruin his view, says environmental advocate Ted Kennedy; he is leading the battle against an offshore wind farm visible from his family’s waterfront compound on Cape Cod.
Read the whole article at the above link. Naturally, it’s all about being able to raise taxes for more government revenue. Those naive enough to believe these new revenues would then somehow be used to “solve” global warming or other environmental problems should ponder this: if any reasonable and affordable “solution” were known, someone would be getting rich from producing it already. Money in the hands of the government goes . . . well, no one is exactly sure where it goes, except that it rarely arrives at the stated purpose for raising it, and never achieves the proclaimed goals.