From The Independent:
The core of the report is the calculation of how much CO2 can be cost-effectively reduced at a given level for the price. If the price were at $20 a tonne by 2030, the report says, emissions could be cost-effectively cut back by up to 17 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases per year. If it were to rise to nearly $100 a tonne by the same date, the cut could be as much as 31 billion tonnes, which would be the 50 per cent reduction the world needs to avoid disaster.
The price of doing all this varies with the rate of the world's economic growth, but it reckons it could be done for less than 1 per cent of global GDP, a figure similar to that given by the British economist Sir Nicholas Stern in his report last year.
Leftist are doing what they always do: if they can't get the revolution in one blow, they'll go for the incremental approach (it works well, I hate to admit). That's how the frog is compliantly boiled.
They've apparently reached the conclusion that people aren't buying the "we have to scuttle our economies today to save tomorrow" approach in sufficient numbers (in fact, skepticism is rising), so they're doing what the car salesman does when he wants to sell you a car. He does some "cypherin'" and, darn it his boss is not gonna be happy about this, but he'll let this beautiful car go at the low, low price of $X. So now, they've lowered the price of "fixing" global warming.
The theory of global warming is the same old lemon it always was. I'm still not buying. Are you?
0 comments:
Post a Comment