Showing posts with label kyoto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kyoto. Show all posts

30 August 2008

The Greening - and Maturing - of Boris

Despite previously attacking the Kyoto Protocol - which regulates international carbon emissions - as "pointless" and saying that anxiety over climate change was "partly a religious phenomenon" Johnson now admits that the 2006 Stern review on the issue had convinced him of the need to act. "When the facts change, you change your mind," he said.

How many senior politicians would dare say that (hello ID cards, hello Gordon)? I predict that we will see far less of the buffoonish Boris, and much more of this grown-up, sensible Boris in the future. Future PM, anyone?

02 December 2007

Why I (Heart) Trees

I've expressed my undying love for trees before, particularly as a way of preserving our atmospheric commons, but I had no idea that they were this good:

'Every year, the expanding European forests remove a surprisingly large amount of carbon from the atmosphere,' the study's co-author Aapo Rautiainen stresses. 'According to rough estimates, their impact in reducing atmospheric carbon may well be twice that achieved by the use of renewable energy in Europe today.'

So what's the obvious lesson to learn from this? Why, that they should be included in calculations of carbon sinks - and that countries who plant more trees/don't cut down the ones they have should be rewarded in terms of carbon credits:

Under the Kyoto Protocol, countries currently do not get emission credits for increasing natural carbon sinks through forestry and agriculture. The Finnish researcher's suggest, however, that this might be a helpful tool. 'Policies that accelerate the expansion of our forest biomass not only represent a win-win for climate change and biodiversity, they also open up economic opportunities,' states Laura Saikku, the third author of the study. 'Land owners can benefit with new industries like forest-based bio-energy production. This could also help to reduce one of the main threats to sustained forest expansion - the need to open land to produce agricultural biofuels as alternatives to fossil fuels.'

Obvious, really.

03 October 2007

How Europe Can Save the World

One of the things I've always admired about Richard Stallman is his belief that if you do the Right Thing, eventually you'll win everyone over. That's seems to be happening in software, but I've always been slightly sceptical that it might work elsewhere. I was wrong, it seems:

The European Union's drive to set standards has many causes—and a protectionist impulse within some governments (eg, France's) may be one. But though the EU is a big market, with almost half a billion consumers, neither size, nor zeal, nor sneaky protectionism explains why it is usurping America's role as a source of global standards.

...

If you manufacture globally, it is simpler to be bound by the toughest regulatory system in your supply chain. Self-regulation is also a harder sell when it comes to global trade, which involves trusting a long line of unknown participants from far-flung places (talk to parents who buy Chinese-made toys).

..

Obey EU rules or watch your markets “evaporating”, a computer industry lobbyist tells Mr Schapiro. “We've been hit by a tsunami,” says a big wheel from General Motors. American multinationals that spend money adjusting to European rules may lose their taste for lighter domestic regulations that may serve only to offer a competitive advantage to rivals that do not export. Mr Schapiro is a campaigner for tougher regulation of American business. Yet you do not have to share his taste for banning chemicals to agree with his prediction that American industry will want stricter standards to create a level playing-field at home.

What this says is that tough regulations in the EU plus globalisation work to spread high standards for business throughout the world. So how about the following?

If the EU brought in laws that imposed an environmental impact tax on every item sold in the EU - determined by working out the cost/damage to the environment caused by that single item, and calculated by the EU - then the above logic would imply that companies around the world, including the US and China, would have very strong incentives to minimise environmental damage.

Moreover, as the above quotation points out, global companies would also start pushing for such legislation to be enacted in their home markets in order to create a level playing-field with their local competitors. The greenness would flow from Europe across the world, without the need for a post-Kyoto treaty or anything similar.

C'mon Europe, time to save the world. (Via PlexNex.)

13 October 2006

And Talking of Global Catastrophe...

The latest cheery reading from Friends of the Earth puts a price-tag of around £11 trillion (that's £11,000,000,000,000, in case you were wondering) on the economic damage caused by runaway climate change, by the year 2100. An estimate, and probably an under-estimate.

And yet, we hear, the cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol is "too high" for the US economy:

For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consumers.

Right, a "negative economic impact": what, like to the tune of a few trillion pounds? I don't think so....