Feeds

back to article EU's 2020 CO2 target 'will add a year to economic slump'

The EU's effort to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent is twice as costly as it needs to be, and is likely to impact growth across the continent, according to a new study by a leading environmental economist. Europe failed to produce a cost-benefit analysis when it set its climate target, so Dr Richard Tol has filled the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

I don't think I've ever seen a proper cost-benefit analysis in ANY report supporting carbon reduction or renewables.

8
1
Facepalm

Not just Cost-Benefit

that's missing - no concept of Opportunity Cost seems to be applied either.

Could we better spend the money currently being wasted on wind and solar on retro-fitting insulation instead? I am pretty sure we could.

2
1
Silver badge

There was one by MCKinsey.

But its largely ignored because it shows that renewable energy is utter pants.

See here

www.templar.co.uk/downloads/cocu07.pdf

2
1
Unhappy

Stupid Sheeple

With the world economy collapsing around our ears, the sheeple blissfully unaware and the rich just trying to work out how to keep there profits so inflation doesn't affect them so much, do not be suprised when your electric bill is on par with your mortgage repayments/rent.

But don't worry the bread and circuses will continue so your x-Factor/Star Trek reruns will keep you happy.

The real question is who will blink first the USA, EU or China. At this rate my same wage for the past 3 years would go on the morons in the EU.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Stupid Sheeple

Since I paid off my mortgage years ago, I can only wish that my electricity bill matched it..

I am not sure what you mean by 'blink first'.

China and the USA never signed up to Kyoto. They pay only lip service to 'carbon reduction'. Only in the EU where Germany makes serious profits out of supplying wind turbines and solar panels have 'renewables' any real traction, and now the Chinese are making them cheaper than the Germans can, you may expect a policy U turn as well. Especially since they are completely nonexistent on the cost benefit graph of 'things that save carbon emissions at reasonable prices'.

7
0

Re: Stupid Sheeple

You have 3 friends, they earn a pound a day, they spend 2 pounds a day and owe each other a tenner. Now to make up the sort fall they keep borrow a pound off each other. (This is so simple it doesn't work but it gives you a very basic idea to go and learn more I would hope.)

1
1

Re: Stupid Sheeple

PS Itzman what does TCP in TCP/IP stand for?

0
1

Serious stuff

Boy, Richard Tol sure stirs things up. Important to remember that we should not subsidise the rich with solar panel subsidies using taxes collected from the poor.

6
0

Seems the Wind-Ups aren't biting this time.

...Much.

;-)

0
0
Silver badge
Meh

Not dramatic

As the guy himself says, a loss of 1.3% is not dramatic, so losing 1 year's growth in 10 is no big deal.

I fail to see what the big deal with 'growth' is anyway, because what is really meant by 'growth' is usually increase in GDP. Big effing deal, an increase of 2% GDP will allow people to buy 2% cheap tat made in China that they do not need. I would much rather have 'flat' growth, just keeping up with inflation, while at the same time the quality of life is increasing - ie cleaner air and water, more green spaces in built-up areas, etc. Particulate pollution is an excellent reason to cut out carbon fuels (and relevant subsidies), without even the climate change reason

3
1

Re: Not dramatic

The economy grows, we earn more money, there are more jobs, more people are employed, so the gubermint spends less on benefits and receives more tax income. So it can either choose to take less tax or spend the money on hospitals, police, schools, green spaces, cleaner air and enormous subsidies to generate green energy...

Oh, and we're talking about doing this at a time where inflation is running at ~3%, and there's no growth at all. What about those who are on low incomes????

2
0
Facepalm

Get on with it!

Not doing anything about greenhouse gas emissions "just yet" is exactly like not saving for your pension "just yet". Keep waiting and the cost of a realistic level of provision compounds dramatically. That is why it is important to get things moving now rather than waiting until... when exactly?

You can always make the excuse that now is not the time to do it, but all the time the CO2 in particular is building up in the atmosphere and stays there for at least 100 years.

There is a finite amount we can afford to put up there so the longer we delay, the bigger the challenge will be to reduce our emissions to a level that will not cause us problems; or alternatively the worse the resulting problems will be for us all.

Instead of pooh-poohing the attempts of governments to get on with the job it would be much better to be critical of those governments which are really dragging their feet.

This really is the ultimate example of the tragedy of the commons, a concept that the American right wing in particular (and parts of the Tory party) would do well to try and understand.

1
3

gee, difficult decision...

...continue to send tonnes of pollutants into the air while breaking your agreements, or add a year to the recovery.

...allow dirty industries to stay dirty, or add a year to the recovery.

...pass our problems on to our children, or add a year to the recovery.

...possibly cause the death of us all, or add a year to the recovery.

God, such hard decisions! And amazing how much value is placed on so short a length of time.

1
3
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: gee, difficult decision...

"possibly cause the death of us all, or add a year to the recovery." Hyperbole does not help your argument at all.

0
0

Let us never never doubt What nobody is sure about

Growth pays for better lives. For me it may be a larger telly, for others in the world it may be health and education for their children. The physics of climate change may be fine - the economics and politics are far less certain. We should spend money and effort where it will do most good. Does this really mean building windmills?

1
0
FAIL

Have I ever been mislead !

I had been lead to believe that it was the banksters and their creative packaging of mortgages, swaps, etc, etc, ad nauseam, that lead to the global financial crisis and a disasterous - for poor people, not for the banksters, who got bailed out, using taxes extracted from the poor and the so-called (and rapidly failing) «middle class» - downturn in the economy. Now A O, that expert on all things economic and climatic, has deigned to set me straight - it's rather those nasty EU bureaucrats and their insane desire to cut the emission of CO2 (which every right-thinking A O follower knows merely makes the grass grow greener and has no discernible effect on climate). Moreover, he has managed to do so without mentioning the word «hippies» a single time ! My gratitude knows no bounds....

Henri

0
1
This topic is closed for new posts.