I spoke at a conference this week where we started with some climate change fanatic from the IEA then followed up with a busybody from the egregious WWF – so, of course, in my bit on commodities (the ostensible purpose of the event!), I couldn’t resist saying that inhibitions to supply included:
“…anthrophobic, anticapitalist environmentalism, whether in the form of cuddly panda pressure groups or the compulsory purchase of the Green indulgences which masquerade as carbon permits…”
and added something about,
“…not wanting to give any credence whatsoever to the Peak Oilers’ and Climate Catastrophists’ dismal Malthusianism by claiming that mineral and energy resources are in any meaningful sense ‘finite’….”
At the end, in the Q&A, the climate change hack immediately grabbed the microphone and demanded of me:
” Did you say ‘dismal science’?!? Do you just not understand the science or are you just annoyed that your precious commodities will not do well if we act to cut emissions?”
So, I replied:
“Well thank you for the slur on my intellect, professor, but, actually the science is a good deal more controversial than is suggested by the propaganda put out by you and the rest of the One World socialists.”
“And as for commodities, it actually suits me professionally if you succeed, because you will artificially heighten their scarcity and they will perform well – and certainly better than equities or bonds. My company will do well and I will probaby get a bigger bonus with which to buy Tony Blair’s ludicrous personal carbon permits when they’re issued..”
He didn’t have a lot to say to that!
PS. For a priceless spoof on the sanctimony and addled-headedness involved in all this, see this link (thank you, JE)
{ 12 comments }
What are you doing about global warming? Have you held your breath today?
That’s actually very funny.
Excellent.
You have brought upon yourselves TokyoTom´s wrath.
Francisco,
Even TT isn’t intelligent enough to have something smart to say in retort to such plainly stated and cogently construed truths.
Mark, what plain and cogently stated truths does Mr. Corrigan proffer?
- that “carbon permits” would inhibit the supply of commodities?
In the case of carbon permits, the only commodities involved are fossil fuels. Carbon permits would not inhibit the supply of these commodities, but dampen demand. This might affect production rates.
- that “if we act to cut emissions”, “you will artificially heighten [the] scarcity [of commodities] and they will perform well – and certainly better than equities or bonds”?
Acting to cut emissions would dampen demand, thus adversely affecting the prices of fossil fuels and the royalties earned on them. This is why fossil fuel producers and the major OPEC nations oppose firm action on climate change.
This is why suppliers of carbon-light natural gas and “alternative” fuels welcome climate change measures – it would enhance demand for those engery sources.
- that “Climate Catastrophists” are dismal Malthusians who “claim[] that mineral and energy resources are in any meaningful sense ‘finite’”?
There may be some “climate catastrophists” who have such a belief, but of course the real concern they profess is that GHG emissions and other human economic activities are changing the climate; this has nothing to do with the scarcity of commodities.
- that environmentalism is anthrophobic and anticapitalist?
I agree that there be many of that type. Hate the misanthrope, love the problem, I say.
- that “the science is a good deal more controversial than is suggested by the propaganda put out by you and the rest of the One World socialists”?
Hardly a cogently constructed truth, but I imagine it accurately reflects Mr. Corrigan’s shallow understanding.
Just who the heck are all those One World socialists, and how did they get their grubby paws over all of the science and make it merely their propaganda?
My suggestion is that there is more to concerns about climate change than wrong-way Corrigan is willing to let meet his eye. If he’s interested, here are a few links from a whiole lot of One World socialits propagandists:
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/GreenhouseEffect.html (Thomas Schelling)
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020501facomment8138/thomas-c-schelling/what-makes-greenhouse-sense.html?mode=print
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7852924
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7884738
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/28/asia/AS_GEN_Australia_Climate_Change.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/11/23/cnboom23.xml
http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-00-40.pdf
http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-Resources-157-Kyoto.pdf
http://www.arec.umd.edu/arec489c/ppt/1%20Intro%20Climate%20Change_new.pdf
http://www.arec.umd.edu/arec489c/images/nordhaus%202001.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/41xx/doc4171/04-25-ClimateChange.pdf
http://www.arec.umd.edu/arec489c/
Down with misanthropes!
TT
TT,
On more than one thing is Dr. Reisman correct, though, certainly, in his drawing out the parrallel between Tokyo Rose and yourself, I doubt he’s been more correct.
See? I told ya y’all would incur in TT’s wrath, all 12 links of it!
Mark, what, no support for Corrigan’s cogent truths?
If Dr. Reisman reads your post, he’s bound to be offended by your implication that, if he has really never been more correct than in suggesting parallels between me and Tokyo Rose, then he has been correct on very little indeed. Surely he deserves better than that!
As I noted previously, even as Dr. Reisman seems at a loss to respond with arguments about property rights and statism, that’s just part of his schtick, so I can do that; his apparent intemperance is just for fun. That’s why I just love him and the VMI blog – so full of fun people!
In the case of carbon permits, the only commodities involved are fossil fuels. Carbon permits would not inhibit the supply of these commodities, but dampen demand. This might affect production rates.
It would not dampen demand. See below.
Acting to cut emissions would dampen demand, thus adversely affecting the prices of fossil fuels and the royalties earned on them.
Carbon credits are designed to target (what else?) companies and countries (i.e. governments), since it would be impossible to place a proper lien on each person standing right now on the ground. That very fact defeats the purpose of the Carbon Credit, for it is individual persons that emit CO2 in greater quantities than companies. For governments to be compliant, since no government has the wherewithal to measure each person’s exact CO2 emissions in order to give the “correct” carbon credit to each [the calculation problem], bureaucracies would simply do two things: either create and impose a sweeping tax on (you name it) gasoline, natural gas, fuel oil, etc. which would be akin to political suicide, or it would simply issue itself more CCs like the Europeans are doing (i.e. cheating).
This is why fossil fuel producers and the major OPEC nations oppose firm action on climate change.
If they oppose this for the reasons you posit, then those companies are being run by fools, since the CCs will not affect demand by a long shot, it would simply make consumer products more expensive. It would also lead to interesting unitended consequences, like the creation by high-emission companies of dummy companies that spew not one CO2 molecule above the breathing levels in order to have more CCs issued to them.
This is why suppliers of carbon-light natural gas and “alternative” fuels welcome climate change measures – it would enhance demand for those engery sources.
Wouldn’t this be an example of corporate statism, TT? I already pointed this out to you.
“What? More regulation? Will it hinder our competitors? Then F…, yeah! Bring it on!”
Francisco
I recall an article a few months back where Prof Reisman demonstrated that carbon trading schemes and the like are lucrative for large institutions/organisations/trading blocks/govts but impose added burdens and expense on everyone else. They are yet another example of the govt’s favoured cronies at the trough of OPM (other peoples money). At core they rely on theft. Somuch for property rights.
Sione
Francisco:
I`m not sure why you persist on putting me always on the opposite side of you. Prefer black-white thinking much?
I`m well aware of the corporate statism by suppliers of carbon-light natural gas and “alternative” fuels and I intentiionally pointed it out here, so save your “gotcha!”
But you`re missing my point about WHY they are in favor of climate change rules – because it will shift demand from carbon-heavy fuels (negatively affecting those commodity prices, as I said, contrary to Corrigan) to carbon-lite fuels and technologies. I agree that there will of course remain demand for coal and oil, but artificially hiking the costs to users will of course shift demand away.
“it is individual persons that emit CO2 in greater quantities than companies”
Here you are simply wrong, Francisco, as a little research will show you.
Comments on this entry are closed.