Billions wasted in another UN-Kyoto scam

$10 Billion in 4 years, big deal, we waste that in a week in Iraq.

 

I call your $10 billion and raise you another $5 billion.

Spending On Iraq Poorly Tracked

Of course I would argue that lives on both sides lost are worth way more than the money wasted. I wonder how many lives were wasted in the global warming scheme.

 

The source report, lightly quoted in the Guardian article, looks like it might make for interesting reading (Billion dollar headlines aside, as they were added in the newspaper report).

It is available at:
A Realistic Policy on International Carbon Offsets - FSI Stanford

This article reviews the actual experience in the world's largest offset market-the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)-and finds an urgent need for reform. Well-designed offsets markets can play a role in engaging developing countries and encouraging sound investment in low-cost strategies for controlling emissions. However, in practice, much of the current CDM market does not reflect actual reductions in emissions, and that trend is poised to get worse. Nor are CDM-like offsets likely to be effective cost control mechanisms. The demand for these credits in emission trading systems is likely to be out of phase with the CDM supply. Also, the rate at which CDM credits are being issued today-at a time when demand for such offsets from the European ETS is extremely high-is only one-twentieth to one-fortieth the rate needed just for the current CDM system to keep pace with the projects it has already registered. If the CDM system is reformed so that it does a much better job of ensuring that emission credits represent genuine reductions then its ability to dampen reliably the price of emission permits will be even further diminished.

We argue that the U.S., which is in the midst of designing a national regulatory system, should not to rely on offsets to provide a reliable ceiling on compliance costs. More explicit cost control mechanisms, such as "safety valves," would be much more effective. We also counsel against many of the popular "solutions" to problems with offsets such as imposing caps on their use. Offset caps as envisioned in the Lieberman-Warner draft legislation, for example, do little to fix the underlying problem of poor quality emission offsets because the cap will simply fill first with the lowest quality offsets and with offsets laundered through other trading systems such as the European scheme. Finally, we suggest that the actual experience under the CDM has had perverse effects in developing countries-rather than draw them into substantial limits on emissions it has, by contrast, rewarded them for avoiding exactly those commitments.

Offsets can play a role in engaging developing countries, but only as one small element in a portfolio of strategies. We lay out two additional elements that should be included in an overall strategy for engaging developing countries on the problem of climate change. First, the U.S., in collaboration with other developed countries, should invest in a Climate Fund intended to finance critical changes in developing country policies that will lead to near-term reductions. Second, the U.S. should actively pursue a series of infrastructure deals with key developing countries with the aim of shifting their longer-term development trajectories in directions that are both consistent with their own interests but also produce large greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
​

 

Very good point!

... Brad

 

Actually its about 10bn a month for Iraq and Afghanistan, and wasted is debatable for those with open minds.

The best part of the article was the Governments reaction to the study, outright denying all its findings and insisting nothings wrong! Nice.

Primary reason I will ALWAYS be against "cap and trade" is that all the systems work it so we pay other countries, like China! It also creates another bureaucratic nightmare full of international corruption, can you say oil for food or French troops raping African children? Go U.N.!

 

Well I have a pretty open mind, and it is wasted. Afghanistan will be many many years away from sustaining itself, Iraq sooner, but Iraq has one thing going against it, the US, depending on administration, it will either be a prolonged US occupation or a shorter one.

Afghanistan only has the opium crop as its biggest money maker, and opium money keeps things status quo, criminals win, seems logical. That also leaves open the possibility that a criminal element, hard line dictator or religious nutjob or group will take over at some point, logical still. Now we can postpone that indefinately, as long as we are willing to police and fund Afghanistan forever or how ever long before the US goes completely bankrupt.

Iraq, humm lets see if logic comes into play, Iraq's biggest asset is oil, oil breeds haves and have nots, Iraq is now Shiite governed, Shiite's only other government in the region, that is aligned with their thinking, is Iran, so logically at some point, Iraq and Iran will be working closely together. That together, will probably include the most for their major asset, oil, so a goal of keeping prices high seems logical. As a join powerhouse, they would have a lot of clout with OPEC, with only more moderate Sunni governments, which surrounding them, as the only buffer, and the Sunni governments have been the only ones concerned with high oil prices.

As far as governments go, Iraq only has three ways to go, they might be able to keep a somewhat hardline government going with US support, it could also eventually become another dictatorship with a coup, or even some kind of religious takeover, and both of those could only be prevented with a long term occupation of Iraq. So a logical conclusion is, base partly on history, is either stay in Iraq for a very very long time, or allow Iraq to do what comes normally, either way, it will cost the US a lot, either with oil prices or long term military expense.

So in conclusion, waste either and any way you look at it. An optimist would say that Iraq will be free and democratic country with our help, but a free and democratic Iraq will want as high a price for their oil as possible.
Where is the win?

If the kindoms of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE were democratic, do you think prices would have been higher sooner, I do, there would be a lot of voices demanding more money.