International climate talks in Bonn last weekend were trying to salvage December’s failed Copenhagen summit.

But some rich countries are imposing their own carbon limits anyway, and threatening to curb imports from poor countries that are not. We believe this will cripple the rich economies and harm the poor countries without doing much about emissions.

A number of governments want such green protection, including taxes on carbon-intensive imports, or all imports, from countries that do not cut emissions, especially the main targets, China and India.

US climate legislation before the Senate calls these policies “a border measure”.

But these ideas threaten international trade, growth and recovery. Industries in rich countries face punitive and expensive measures against climate change. Many fear they will be unable to compete with countries that do not have such emissions restrictions, and fear manufacturing and jobs will move away to them.

The EU wants to cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, while proposed US legislation aims for 80 per cent by 2050. Other large emitters of greenhouse gases, such as India and China, are more worried about sustaining growth and tackling poverty.

Carbon restrictions on trade will do little to reduce emissions. Taxing carbon-intensive imports from China, for example, would have negligible impact because the majority of its emissions-laden exports go to other developing countries.

Carbon barriers to trade make even less sense considering the nature of global production. “The extensive foot-printing of so many products with components across so many international boundaries makes this exercise nigh on impossible,” Australia’s Department of Climate Change stated in 2008.

Rich countries import about a third of their CO2 emissions (meaning the amount of CO2 released in making the imported goods), often from developing countries. The production of a single good often involves trading components between many countries. Complex supply chains have brought cheaper and better goods and high-paying jobs to rich countries, and infrastructure, new jobs and higher incomes to developing countries.

More than a quarter of all global trade in manufacturing is in intermediate components, not finished goods. The value of component trade rose from $US404 billion in 2002 to $US1258bn in 2004. Rich countries cannot restrict imports without damaging their own production and growth. They would just protect their inefficient companies that are vulnerable to competition at the expense of globally competitive companies.

A few months ago, the EU extended tariffs on shoe imports from East Asia at the request of its domestic shoe producers. Yet such tariffs harm EU shoe companies that have invested heavily in manufacturing in Asia: they provide EU consumers with cheap shoes and support high-value jobs in Europe in marketing, innovation and design.

Barriers to trade for the sake of climate control would have the same effect, and would push up prices everywhere.

US President Barack Obama warned during the global recession last year: “We have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there.” Yet the US joined Australia, the EU and Japan in rejecting demands at Copenhagen by India, China and other developing countries that rich nations “not resort to any form of unilateral measures against goods and services imported from developing countries on grounds of protection and stabilisation of climate”.

Caroline Boin and Alec van Gelder are project directors at the International Policy Network, a development think tank based in London

Tomorrow, March 27, people around the world will celebrate Earth Hour, a global event organised by WWF. At the appointed hour on this day, cities worldwide will turn off all non-essential lights to express their concern for the environmental challenges our planet faces.

Malaysia is expected to play its part in this event by switching off the lights on such iconic buildings as the Petronas Twin Towers and Menara KL. Supporters of the event stress that its significance lies in the way it symbolises people’s willingness to combat climate change.

But is that really what Earth Hour will symbolise?

In conjunction with Earth Hour, many businesses and organisations have planned a wide range of events and activities. The National Space Agency (Angkasa), for instance, is encouraging people to make “Earth Hour Lanterns” and create designs by lining up candles. The whole atmosphere surrounding Earth Hour is one of festive fun — and it certainly cannot be denied that holding candles in the dark makes for some enchanting photographs.

Unfortunately, however, participants will overlook the deeper meaning of Earth Hour. They will take it for granted that turning the lights out for an hour is an easy and enjoyable way of taking part in a noble cause.

Yet once Earth Hour is over, the lights will come back on, cars will start up for the journey home — and at home, people will more than likely take for granted the value of their many modern gadgets: from refrigerators to TVs; fans and air-conditioners to desktop computers. What they will have failed to realise, most crucially, is the true nature of the environmentalist cause that they are supporting.

The environmentalist movement claims to be working for the benefit of mankind, since, as we have all been told, the human race as a whole must ultimately suffer if we fail to look after our planet. What most people do not appreciate, however, is that the environmentalists’ disdain for technological progress — and more generally, just about any carbon-emitting process — is itself a position incompatible with the wellbeing of human life.

While virtually everyone today is familiar with the message to save the planet, far too few of us are aware of what history has to teach us about the value of industrial civilisation. Even a fairly casual survey of human history shows us that life before the industrial revolution consisted of endless, backbreaking physical toil, constant famine and widespread disease. With the advent of the industrial revolution, the lives of millions of human beings — at least within the civilised world — became longer, more plentiful, and much more enjoyable.

Today, we have the great innovators of that period to thank for the many conveniences we enjoy in our daily lives. It is only because the thinkers and producers — the scientists, inventors, engineers, and businessmen — who came before us sought to improve their lives by moulding and reshaping their environment that we are able today to enjoy the comfort of automobiles and the ease of lighting our homes with the simple flick of a switch.

This is the broader context that is all but ignored in today’s discussion of our environmental impact. Maybe our high levels of energy consumption are contributing to a warmer climate; maybe they aren’t — but the point that we must bear in mind is that without the trappings of modern industrial society, death and suffering are guaranteed.

The message that Earth Hour sends out is simple and seductive. But before rushing to join in the party, how many people will pause to ask themselves what life would look like without lights, electricity, and technology — not for one hour — but for an entire month, week, or even day? How many will consider the harsh consequences of a life without safe, efficient lighting; without microwaves and gas and heated water; without any of the time-saving, labour-saving products that characterise modern industrial civilisation?

The symbolism associated with Earth Hour is indeed very powerful. The effective imagery of the beautiful KL skyline being literally plunged into darkness — not to mention satellite pictures of a darkened, seemingly-uninhabited Earth — should leave us with no doubts as to the actual meaning of Earth Hour. Yet, far from eliciting a sense of angry defiance, or even concern, Earth Hour gives us the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating the extinguishing of our lights.

The age-old symbolism attached to the imagery of light has always been that of the good; that of progress and enlightenment. Earth Hour’s symbolic extinguishing of light is therefore an all-too blatant assault on human achievement and the glory of industrial civilisation. Anyone truly concerned with the welfare of mankind should refuse to endorse such an event — and reject completely the environmentalist ideology upon which it is premised.

Kwek Kon Yao is a Fellow at the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS;
www.IDEAS.org.my).
Some of his articles can also be found in Malay at AkademiMerdeka.org.

Link: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/kwek-kon-yao/57582-turning-out-the-lights-on-civilisation

The European Union is funding some of the most powerful environmental NGOs in Brussels – while in turn, they lobby the EU for more money and influence.

LONDON, 8 MARCH — A new report published today by International Policy Network finds that between 1998 and 2009, the European Commission’s environment unit has handed out over €66 million in core funding to green NGOs.

The report – “Friends of the EU” – analyses one coalition of green NGOs called the “Green 10” and finds that its members receive hundreds of thousands of Euros each year from the EU.

• Nine out of the Green 10 receive funds from the Commission.
• Eight members receive one-third or more of their income from the Commission.
• Five of those – which include the European Environmental Bureau, Friends of the Earth Europe and the Health and Environment Alliance – rely on the Commission for more than half of their funding.

The Green 10 has consistently lobbied the EU for yet more money and power.

• The Green 10 lobbied to “green” the EU’s Cohesion Fund, which distributes about €50 billion to projects in the EU every year.
• The Green 10 demanded a seat for an environmental NGO on every single project committee, the reimbursement of expenses, as well as training and capacity building.
• Having failed to obtain these self-serving demands, the Green 10 is already lobbying in anticipation of the 2014-2020 budget.

Caroline Boin, co-author of “Friends of the EU,” said:

“The EU is buying itself the illusion of democracy by funding large green lobby groups – all at the expense of European citizens. This self-serving scheme will do little to calm public anger at the EU’s democratic deficit.”

Notes

The report is available here: http://policynetwork.net/accountability/publication/friends-eu

This report analyses one programme of funding, in which DG Environment (the division of the European Commission responsible for environmental affairs) distributed over €66 million to environmental NGOs between 1998-2009.

The grants the Green 10 receives from the EU have increased significantly between 1998 and 2009: by 900% for Birdlife Europe and 325% for Friends of the Earth Europe between 1998 and 2009.

The Taxpayers Alliance published new research today revealing how the British government’s “Act on CO2″ campaign cost the taxpayer £8.6 million in grants issued through the Climate Challenge Fund.

Matthew Sinclair, Research Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“The Government has clearly crossed the line from public information to propaganda on climate change.  Many of the Climate Change Fund projects are utterly bonkers and misleading, and come with a huge price tag. Despite a fortune having been spent on these projects, the Fund has failed even on its own spurious terms. It is infuriating for taxpayers to see their money squandered on attempts to scare and indoctrinate the public.”

Link: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/home/2010/02/thursday-february-18.html

PDF: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/CCF.pdf

Daily Mail article

Venue: India International Centre, (Conference Room 1, main building), Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi 110003.

Programme:
5.30 pm: Tea
6.00 pm: Welcome and introductions
6.10 pm: Presentations by Dr Fred Singer
6.30 pm: Presentation by Dr Benny Peiser
6.50 pm: Comments by Dr Dev Raj Sikka
7.00 pm: Comments by Dr Prodipto Ghosh
7.10 pm: Questions and Answers
7.45 pm: Chairman’s remarks by Prof MGK Menon
7.55 pm: Vote of thanks

RSVP:

Liberty Institute, New Delhi
Email: libertyinstitute@gmail.com
Tel: 011-42815409
India International Centre, New Delhi
Tel: 011-24619431

The Speakers:

Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. He organized and chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) and was lead author of its summary report “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.”  He co-authored its full report “Climate Change Reconsidered” [2009] www.NIPCCreport.org.
In the 1960s, Dr Singer established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues. Since retiring from the University of Virginia and from his last federal position as chief scientist of the Department of Transportation, Singer founded and directed the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project. www.SEPP.org

Dr Benny Peiser is the Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (London) and the editor of CCNet, the world’s leading climate policy network. He is the co-editor of the journal Energy and Environment, a scientific advisor to the Lifeboat Foundation and a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. A 10km-wide asteroid, Minor Planet (7107) Peiser, was named in his honour by the International Astronomical Union. The recently established Global Warming Policy Foundation is chaired by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK. http://www.thegwpf.org/

RSVP:
Liberty Institute
Julian L. Simon Centre
C-4/8 Sahyadri,
Plot 5, Sector 12, Dwarka
New Delhi 110078

Tel: 011-42815409
Email: LibertyInstitute |AT| gmail.com

Liberty Institute, New Delhi
www.InDefenceofLiberty.org

Empowering India
www.EmpoweringIndia.org