Global Warming Nonsense Infects G8 Summit

The Europeans couldn't meet their targets under Kyoto, so why should anyone expect the G8 to succeed in cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050?

The G-8 has been under pressure to secure commitments by wealthy nations to push forward stalled U.N.-led talks on forging a new accord to battle global warming by the end of next year. The new accord would succeed the troubled Kyoto Protocol when its first phase expires in 2012.

The United States hailed the agreement as substantial progress, and a top European Union official called it a "new, shared vision" by wealthy nations on climate.

Tuesday's statement, however, addressed total world emissions rather than just those produced by wealthy countries, and critics attacked it for failing to go much beyond the G-8 statement last year. The communique also did not set a base year from which emissions would be cut.

That date is so far into the future that it's likely that no one connected with the decision will be alive to deal with the repercussions of such a move.

This statement finally takes into account the Chinese market, who are building at such a prodigious level that it has overtaken the US as the largest emitter of COx faster than the scientists had expected, and the Chinese were not a party to Kyoto. Any cuts by the US (and the US has actually reduced emissions while the Kyoto challenged Europeans haven't reduced theirs at all) are more than offset by Chinese increases.

It also underlines the real issue here - wealth transfer from the big economic powers to everyone else. Still, the science behind these statements is suspect and the costs associated with curbs on emissions would likely exceed any benefits by a tremendous margin.

California, which has spurred many of these global warming ideas, now considers concrete to be an enemy of global warming. They note that the production of cement releases carbon dioxide. A ton of cement produces a ton of carbon dioxide. Therefore, the only way to reduce carbon emissions is to reduce consumption of concrete.

So much for construction in California. Or roads. Or bridges. Or housing. Of course, given that California is trying to penalize drivers for driving, and wants to impose carbon scores for all vehicles shaming them into submission, there might be one outcome that is unanticipated by the folks who come up with this nonsense. People will simply stop going to California and seek out places to live that do not impose such ridiculous restrictions.