|
|
|
| |
Any Working Climate Agreement Is a Cartel
|
|
| |
This one's pretty simple, so no need to fuss over it.
Any working international climate agreement is an agreement to reduce carbon emissions—all kinds of them. That includes oil and gasoline.
Any international agreement among consumers to reduce the consumption of oil is an international cartel—and it will work as one. It will reduce the price of oil on the world market. An contrary to a few confused environmentalists, that's a good thing!
I think the confusion is this: "If we reduce the price of oil, the people will use more oil and that's bad." Now you can see just how painfully confused this is.
"Logic:" Using less is bad because it will make us use more.
Look, you can only have it one way. Either we use less or we use more—not both at once. If we use less that's good for the climate. If we use more that's not a consumers' cartel and it does not lower the price of oil, so don't say its a criticism of a cartel. Using more has nothing at all to do with a consumer's cartel.
Bottom line:
Any working international climate agreement is a consumer's cartel,
and that's a good thing.
|
|
http://stoft.com/p/68.html | 07/30/10 06:08 GMT
Modified: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:52:46 GMT
|
|
| |
Amazon
China and India have nixed caps. Without these caps, Kyoto fails. What can be done?
Carbonomics explains "wrecking" the economy, "peak oil," caps, carbon taxes, and Kyoto.
About Carbonomics.
Get discount.
|
|
|
