(Courtesy of the TPA) From this morning till 18 December 15,000 delegates will descend on Copenhagen to work towards negotiating a treaty to succeed Kyoto and reduce emissions. However, even before the conference has begun, there have been questions over whether a new deal will be struck. US President Barack Obama and Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen have conceded that the conference is unlikely to produce a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and are beginning to make arrangements for a delay until the next conference, in Mexico. British officials also do not expect a new deal, with binding restrictions, to be agreed this year.
In light of that and the large number of other international conferences that have been held this year, taxpayers around the world – who will be supporting the conference and the delegations being sent there – might question whether the conference will constitute good value for money. This research note provides the first estimate of the total cost of the conference.
Key findings:
- A conservative estimate of the total cost of Copenhagen is £130 million ($215 million, €143 million).
- This estimate is based on the Danish government budget and the costs to participating governments of sending 15,000 delegates – including flights, accommodation, food, conferencing facilities and salaries paid to delegates while they are at the conference. It is a conservative estimate as it leaves out costs such as the need for supporting work by staff in the home countries.
Download the full report: Taxpayers Alliance website (PDF).
Matthew Sinclair, Research Director at the TaxPayers Alliance, says:
The politicians and bureaucrats going to Copenhagen seem to think that its unlikely that theyll reach a deal and they know that even if they can get something signed, an increasingly sceptical public arent going to accept ever more expensive climate change policies. This means that a huge amount of money is going to be spent on the summit, and thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted to get there, just to give the delegates a good photo opportunity. Politicians need to stop this expensive jamboree and instead focus domestically on bringing down the ruinous cost to ordinary families of green taxes and regulations.
La “Coalición de la Sociedad Civil sobre Cambio Climático” busca educar al público sobre la ciencia y los efectos económicos del cambio climático. La Coalición está compuesta por 58 organizaciones independientes de la sociedad civil quienes comparten el interés de mejorar el conocimiento público sobre una variedad de temas de políticas públicas. Todos los integrantes son organizaciones sin fines de lucro, sin afiliación política ni gubernamental.
RESUMEN DE PUNTOS PRINCIPALES DEL ESTUDIO
Temas analizados en el estudio incluyen la agricultura, la ayuda externa, la salud y enfermedades, la adaptación y el desarrollo sostenible.
- Recortando las emisiones de gases de invernadero en las próximas dos décadas no es una manera eficiente de enfrentarse al cambio climático.
- No existe evidencia de que el cambio climático cause un incremento en enfermedades. Si las principales causas de enfermedades como la diarrea y la malaria son corregidas, el cambio climático no incrementará la incidencia de dichas enfermedades.
- La producción alimenticia ha crecido más rápido que el crecimiento poblacional en los últimos 50 años. Los avances tecnológicos permitirán que este modelo siga más allá del 2100, aun si las temperaturas promedio del planeta suben 3ºC.
- La escases de agua es un problema en muchos países, pero con un mejor manejo del agua y tecnologías modernas, el agua le puede llegar muchos más.
- Millones de personas en países pobres actualmente mueren por falta de desarrollo y tecnología. Estos problemas generalmente han empeorados, en vez de aliviados, por la ayuda externa, la cual ha ayudado a mantener gobiernos irresponsables que le han negado a sus ciudadanos la posibilidad de mejorar su nivel de vida.
- Las restricciones globales a los gases de invernadero perjudicarían la capacidad de personas en países subdesarrollados para enfrentarse a los problemas de hoy así como también a los del futuro al retrasar el crecimiento y el desarrollo económico.
- En vez de estar solicitando restricciones de emisiones y políticas fallidas de “ayuda”, los gobiernos deberían de enfocarse en reducir las barreras al desarrollo económico y de adaptación: como las barreras comerciales y la descentralización de la administración de agua y tierras.
Un Informe De La Sociedad Civil Sobre Cambio Climático
You have no doubt heard about the UN’s climate conference in Copenhagen next month. Chief among the bad ideas being touted by environmental activists and politicians in the run-up to that meeting is a proposal to permit trade restrictions on the grounds that they will help to prevent climate change (for example by encouraging governments to sign up and comply with an international agreement to restrict emissions). Pascal Lamy, director of the World Trade Organization, has even sanctioned this approach, saying that the world’s priorities should be “climate first and trade, second.” And – surprise surprise – uncompetitive industries and other vested interests have jumped on the bandwagon.
Trade – along with the increased wealth and the better, less costly products and production processes that it yields – offers people in poor countries the possibility once and for all to address chronic problems such as drought-induced famine and poverty-induced diseases. Without trade, people will be much less able to adapt themselves to the climate they face now and in the future. Meanwhile, imposing restrictions on trade will inhibit specialisation and innovation, which may slow down the development of low-carbon technologies. In other words, trade restrictions are neither desirable nor are they an effective way to prevent climate change.
This petition against green protectionism is sponsored by IPN and the Freedom to Trade Campaign. If you agree, then use our online signup form to add your name (and then to confirm, click on email link that is sent to you.)
We call upon the World’s leaders to resist calls for green protectionism. Trade enables specialisation, which results in the development of new technologies and leads to the creation of wealth. In the past two decades, trade has enabled over a billion people to escape poverty. Trade is the most powerful weapon in humanity’s armoury to fight poverty and environmental ills, including climate change. Trade restrictions are not desirable, nor are they an effective means of addressing climate change.
SIGN THE PETITION: online sign-up form
Today Sustainable Development released its second report, Costly, ineffectual and protectionist carbon tariffs. The research paper looks at the cost of carbon tariffs that the EU and US are considering introducing to offset the cost of domestic carbon price signals. Our research found that a potential US carbon tariff on carbon-intensive imports is likely to be set at approximately ten per cent.
The report also finds carbon tariffs would:
* harm the same industries they seek to protect;
* be ineffective in offsetting the cost of domestic carbon price signals and addressing potential carbon leakage
* be administratively impossible to implement
* likely breach the obligations of WTO members to treat all imports equally and equivalent to domestically produced products.
This report has been produced by the Australian think tank, the Insititute for Public Affairs.
Invitation: International Climate Conference – Climate Change Reconsidered
