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
(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
Which policy to address climate change?
Falsehoods and non-sequiturs abound in discussions of climate change; often they are found together. So, for example, it is frequently asserted that “the science is settled” (a falsehood) and that, therefore, “drastic measures are required to avert catastrophe” (a non sequitur). In this paper, I briefly consider the question of what we know about climate change, before moving on to discuss a range of policy options that might be considered in response to what we know.
Undermining mitigation technology: compulsory licencing, patents and tariffs
The incentives to develop the technologies to reduce global CO2 emissions are being undermined.
Internationally, a campaign is being run to undermine the intellectual property that incentivises research and development on CO2 mitigation technologies. These technologies are vital to assist developing and developed countries to reduce their CO2 emissions based on their commitments in international treaties.
The campaign is being run by developing countries and NGOs claiming patents are reducing
the access to CO2 mitigation technologies beyond the means of developing countries.
These NGOs and developing countries are now advocating for amendments to the WTO’s
intellectual property rules (the TRIPS Agreement) to allow for compulsory licensing of CO2 mitigation
technologies. Compulsory licensing allows for the property rights to be waived on patented
inventions and the commercial return they provide. Without the commercial return there is no
incentive for investors to fund research and development into new technology.
Importantly, the industry is very much in its infancy. The stage of development of the industry
has been compared to the semiconductor industry 35 years ago, or the biotechnology industry 25
years ago. Compulsory licensing will stop the industry reaching maturity.
The campaign to undermine incentives for new research and development is not without precedent.
Advocates are using the successful campaign to compulsory license essential medicines under
the TRIPS Agreement as precedent. They are also advocating for the issue to be debated and included
in the next agreement out of the UNFCCC process scheduled to be completed in Copenhagen
in 2009.
By promoting compulsory licensing NGOs and developing countries are claiming that technology
will become more accessible. It won’t.
Numerous studies have found that IP rights are vital for technology transfer from developed to
developing countries. IP provides a tradeable right for an intangible good that assists patent holders
to transfer their property without fear of losing control of their technology.
Instead, studies have found that the bigger threat to technology transfer is not strong IP regimes,
but weak ones. Weak IP rules undermine both the incentives to innovate and discourages technology
transfer from developed to developing countries because the owners risk a violation of their property
rights.
Because of the importance of the private sector in developing the technologies to combat environmental
challenges, previous international treaties have explicitly acknowledged their role. The
Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Kyoto Protocol both recognise the role
of private property rights to address their respective objectives. Both agreements also recognise the
private sector’s role in promoting technological diffusion.
The importance of the private sector is also acknowledged by Governments and multilateral
institutions. Both are currently working on programs to incentivise private investment into CO2
mitigation technologies. The ultimate consequence of undermining IP rights would be to undermine
these programs, as well as commercial incentives.
Attacking patents as the main barrier to technology transfer is also a distraction from the real
barriers that exist to technological diffusion in developing countries—tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
In the top 15 greenhouse gas emitting developing nations, tariff barriers for CO2 mitigation technologies
can be as high as 30 per cent. Non-tariff barriers can be as high as 160 per cent. Only one
country welcomes the free trade of CO2 mitigation technologies.
In comparison to campaigning against patents, if developing countries are serious about reducing
the cost of CO2 mitigation technologies, they can start by reducing the tariff and non-tariff
barriers.
