To sell the Paris Climate Agreement as a real solution to our pied-a-terre’s environment problems, that’s a disgrace

Sir, Pilita Clark writes: “Mr Trump has exposed the fragile nature of the Paris accord. Countries face no legal obligation to meet any emissions-reduction target in their national climate blueprints, including the US. Nor is there anything legally to prevent them from submitting weaker plans” “US dithering exposes fragility of Paris accord” June 1.

If so then all those who sell us the illusion of the Paris Climate Agreement being a real solution, are more in fault hanging on to it, than Trump reneging it.

I have of course not read the Agreement. Who has read it all? To me this type of global agreements too often just feeds crony statism. To me this type of global agreements becomes too often just another photo-op for politicians.

To have a chance to really dent the environmental problems of the world, we need to come up with incentive structures that are green-profiteers proofed. Otherwise we will most probably not be able to afford it.

My preferred solution is to send the right market signals by means of for instance carbon taxes, and distribute all those revenues to all citizens in order to compensate for the increased costs. That would help many citizens to contaminate less, while affording to do more of something else they could want.

Another example: The Economist writes: “Climate policy, a jerry-rigged system of subsidies and compromises, in America and everywhere, needs an overhaul. A growing number of Republicans want a revenue-neutral carbon tax. [Like the one I suggest] As this newspaper has long argued, that would not only be a better way of curbing pollution but also boost growth. A truly businesslike president would have explored such solutions. Mr Trump has instead chosen to abuse the health of the planet, the patience of America’s allies and the intelligence of his supporters.” “The flaws in Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris accord”, June 1.

The question is then: Why does The Economist not denounce the Paris Climate an Agreement for what it is, a political convenient illusion of a solution? Just because being against Trump trumps all other considerations?

http://ourpiedaterre.blogspot.ca/2017/04/solutions-that-share-out-all-benefits.html

@PerKurowski

The real oil revenue fixer is not Opec, much less American shale oil, but the European taxman.

Sir, I can’t believe you use extremely valuable influential space such as your “Comment” space to allow Alan Greenspan to opine such nonsense as the higher cost American shale oil extractor’s having taken over from Opec the power over the price of oil.

What’s wrong with him? Does he not know that the price per barrel of oil is between $50 and $60? Does he not remember that as late as March 1999, The Economist, in “The next shock?” wrote” “$10 might actually be too optimistic. We may be heading for $5”. Had oil not gone over $50, there would be no American shale oil extraction to talk about. 

But, if there is anyone who effectively has taken over the power of generating revenues from oil, which is even more important than influencing the price of oil, well that is the European taxman who by means of gas (petrol) taxes, gets way more revenue than what is paid for a barrel of non-renewable oil of any provenance.

PS. In fact Opec and American shale oil extractors have a common interest fighting the European taxman.

It’s an oil boom stupid!

Sent to The Economist, August 30, 2005, destiny unknown

Sir, In March 1999, in “The next shock?” The Economist wrote that “in today’s conditions the price [of oil] would head down towards $5 [per barrel]” Now again, for the umpteenth time, The Economist, so serious and clearheaded in most issues, loses it all when it comes to oil. In “Counting the Cost” of August 27 and even while assisted by a clear chart of the real prices of oil in 1980 terms, your editorial staff insist on labeling an oil crisis when the index is getting close to 100 and not when that index in 1998 dropped to only 20. That was the real oil crisis, and that is what the world is paying for today!

To top it up, The Economist seems also to be preparing the terrain to blame oil for the collapse of the high property prices that they duly classify as a “boom”, instead of looking at much more plausible culprits. Come on, we expect more from you.