THERE is an entire cannon of western philosophical thought, dating back to John Locke and John Stuart Mills, that explains why the prosperity of a nation is not so much linked to its natural wealth, but rather the proper functioning of markets.
In On Liberty, perhaps John Stuart Mill’s most famous treatise published in 1859, he argues that:
“… the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
Yet in Australia for our own good, and in particular for the good of the environment, almost anything now goes. Even the creation of a market that is neither free nor worth anything.
As Jo Nova explains in a recent blog post based on an article she had published in The Australian newspaper:
"A carbon market is a forced market. There is little intrinsic incentive to buy a certificate for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. It says a lot about the voluntary value of a carbon credit that when given the option to pay $2 to offset their flight emissions, 88% of people choose not to. A few do it as a form of green penance to assuage guilt, and others do it for their eco public relations campaign or branding.
To create demand for emissions permits, the government threatens onerous fines to force people to buy a product they otherwise don’t need and most of the time would never even have thought of acquiring. Likewise, supply wouldn’t exist without government approved agents. Potentially a company could sell fake credits (cheaper than the real ones) and what buyer could spot the difference? Indeed, in terms of penance or eco-branding, fake credits, as long as they were not audited, would 'work' just as well as real ones.
Despite being called a commodity market, there is no commodity: the end result is air that belongs to no-one-in-particular that has slightly-less-of-a-trace-gas. Sometimes it is not even air with slightly less CO2 in it, it is merely air that might-have-had-more-CO2, but doesn’t. It depends on the unknowable intentions of factory owners in distant lands..."
Read more from Jo here: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/jo-nova-in-the-australian-carbon-credits-market-is-neither-free-nor-worth-anything/
For our born again free-marketeers, I'd just like to recall that we will be tying ourselves to a European carbon price, which is not some organic market thingy but pure manipulation by the shambolic, self-loathing, inter-hating European Union. Those who think that "European" smacks of sophistication need to recall that, with only a few exceptions, the individual states operate under recently confected political arrangements - thanks to constant war, revolution, racism, imperialism etc within Europe - and the overarching EU manages to be the worst and most untried system of all. (Needless to say, its detested parliament and still more detested bureaucracy are full of well-heeled ex-Trots and ex-Maoists.)
But go ahead. Be obligated to this murky vampire confederacy...without the rights of membership.
I don't understand why all this off-topic posting has been done here... when I have just opened a new thread. Warning, next time I will just block delete. Now go to the open thread!
Update...
OK I've started deleting.
This thread is about markets and specifically carbon markets.
For general news updates and to post information on the election please go to the open thread. The open thread is also the place for arguing with me.
More on that Labor deficit over the last 11 weeks. A blowout of at least 12 billion $ or more than 1 billion $ a week since the May budget.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_tries_to_buy_voters_love_with_borrowed_billions/#commentsmore
These Labor govts seem to have a genius for buggering up the country plus all the corruption and fraud they employ to do it. See NSW Labor.
IPCC "facts'" now !? - no hypocrisy from Neville here folks - move right along
Sorry I meant blowout every month or so since May, NOT week or so. But geeeeezzzz with these Labor blowouts it's so hard to be accurate and keep up.
In "Cool It" Lomborg gives the IPCC cost estimate for protection of USA for a 1 metre SLR by 2100. Remember 1 metre is total BS anyway. See page 77 and reference 384.
The total cost would be 5 to 6 billion $ over the century. This would be the same as this clueless Labor govt's budget blowout for just every week or so since May budget 2013.
It's clear that this Labor Govt and the world's govts are barking mad and the IPCC facts above prove this point.
Of course just about everybody must reach the same conclusions as Fred Singer. Even the IPCC in their saner moments agreed in their 2007 report that SLR would be just 29cm by 2100. (29cm mid range )
Most of that rise would be covered by thermal expansion or 23cm and after Greenland increase of 3.5 cm , melting glaciers + ice caps 8cm = 34.5 cm.
But Antarctica's increased precipation reduces this by 5.5cm, therefore reducing the total to IPCC 's central estimate of 29cm by 2100.
This is also projected out to 2300 for Antarctica and Greenland and therefore cancels out any dangerous SLR for the next 300 years at least.
It's about time we started to wake up to this fraud and con before we waste more billions $ down the drain for a zero return. These bi-polar fools are lying to us and it's about time the MSM journos did their job.
Dour lot.
Pretty well anyone can be a "reviewer" and hardly anything authoritative.
Sorry I got that wrong, I agree Fred isn't a lead author but is a reviewer . Poor Lukey must have taken something for his earlier wild ramblings and has quietened down a bit.