Following the massive injection of funds into the world financial system, we now hear that investment bankers will be paid huge bonuses, not for any particular skill they have shown, but purely as an unintended consequence of the unique circumstances.
That well-known disciple of Mother Teresa, John "Two-Jag" Prescott, is apoplectic!
But enough about bankers and bonkers already.
The Sunday Times reports that ArcelorMittal, the steel giant headed by Britain's richest man Lakshmi Mittal, will profit by between £1 billion and £3 billion from the carbon emissions trading scheme aimed at reducing global warming.
Now, very few individuals can make that kind of dosh.
A man who lives in a £70 million house with a personal fortune of £11 billion making a few billion more over 2 years! - and to rub salt in the wound of the green lobby, as he trousers these unearned billions his world-wide steel plants are spewing vast quantities of carbon into the atmosphere day and night.
Acccording to emissions trading scheme specialist Anna Pearson, “Between 2008 and 2012 ArcelorMittal stands to gain assets worth 1 billion pounds at today’s prices for scant effort. For them, the ETS has been turned into a system for generating free subsidies. The cap on emissions was set too high and too many permits were issued.”
Shades of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, or what? When will we ever learn?
The ETS scheme grants companies ‘permits' to emit carbon dioxide up to a specified limit and they are also allowed to buy and sell unused permits on the open market.
Sounds OK, but the spectre of inevitable unintended consequences poses the question; is this really the way that climate change campaigners want things to turn out?
This week the Copenhagen climate change summit will hammer away at trying to get agreement on extending emissions controls and if "success" is achieved then President Obama and the world leaders will congratulate themselves on a great step forward.
But the well-intentioned impact, whatever emerges, is unlikely to lead to any significant reduction in global warming. It will however, result in unintended consequences such as those currently enriching the investment bankers. The effects may also be even more economically, environmentally and socially destructive than those of Europe's Common Agricultural Policy.
For a saner climate change perspective, look at the writings of Copenhagen-based Bjorn Lomborg - Google him.
Despite the fact that he lives in the city of the summit he won't get much of a hearing there, but in my view his perspectives and suggested priorities are altogether more convincing and practical for the good of mankind - and are unlikely to enrich bankers, steel magnates or quota-traders in their implementation.
11 comments:
Willo, quite right. We're screwed whatever way we look at it, so it's time to man the lifeboats. Climate change is not something that can be avoided; it can only be navigated until such a time as we develop cheap energy based on hydrogen fusion, either on- or off-planet (preferably off). Meantime, move people into the cities, make 'em go veggie, and zone off huge tracts of land for intensive arable agriculture and even huger tracts as inhabitant-free managed wilderness to re-establish biodiversity and create a buffer for our little experiments.
http://answersingenes.blogspot.com
The real tragedy is the amount of money that is being spent - largely wasted - in fighting forces that cannot realistically be beaten, while it could be used today eg to provide world-wide clean water among many more similar realistic projects.
The other elephant in the room is population growth. Stop that, and emissions control might start to mean something.
There's that trend to dictatorship emerging again, Chairman Will! But... Is it really fair to talk of Mittal in the same breathe as the bankers. The former creates value and this windfall, while excessive, was not self manipulated- just down to serendipity as much as anything else. The Bankers? Well I don't need to say anything. Have a look at the new Strongbow advert- I'd sums it up perfectly. Another more serious site is wattsupwiththat.com Some alternative perspectives .
I would agree that population control and reduction ( perhaps linked to our earlier discussion on the scrounging indolent members of society). 6 billion now and heading to 10 billion within 30 years. The planet will struggle to support this growth let alone cope with the carbon implications . While not a flatearther, I am less than convinced homo sapiens are driving a huge proportion of current climate change-however as the population explodes, aided by falling death rates and greater longevity , our contribution will certainly increase substantially.
I'm not suggesting myself as benevolent dictator!
We are pretty much on the same page but I don't buy the "evil banker" story. Not as simple as the red-tops and John Prescott make out. btw Mittal saw that carbon trading opportunity coming and grabbed it with both hands. Again, I don't blame him, but the climate change geeks who lobbied for ETS and the Govts who put it in place deserve the same scorn we should be dumping on the CAP designers. They have nicked as much money over time as the bankers!
We all have to do Our Little Bit, and my little bit is to dig a fecking great bunker in the garden and stock it with baked beans, razor wire and plasma grenades :-)
Maybe not suggesting it, but some are born great, others have greatness thrust upon them !
I don't think I said the bankers were evil-greedy, yes. Part of a near untouchable incestuous club ? Yes. But what happened was human nature-the system allowed it and that was wrong. We'd have all filled our boots given the chance I'd bet!
Good on Mr mittal for spotting this- that's what entrepreneurs do!
Maybe not suggesting it, but some are born great, others have greatness thrust upon them !
I don't think I said the bankers were evil-greedy, yes. Part of a near untouchable incestuous club ? Yes. But what happened was human nature-the system allowed it and that was wrong. We'd have all filled our boots given the chance I'd bet!
Good on Mr mittal for spotting this- that's what entrepreneurs do!
I think I'd better order that sharp uniform with the gold braid and medals. My vanity is causing me to weaken!
Agree on your comment. There but for the grace of ..... etc
In fairness, this is a classic illustration of why the market cannot be relied upon to gravitate towards the "right" (or at least a self-correcting) solution. As if we hadn't realised this already! Enterprise is all very well, but stealing something that is common property (which is effectively what polluting/emitting companies are doing) is not entrepreneurship - it is theft. The absence of *laws* stating that does not change the essential morality.
But instead of complaining about it, we need to take it into account, and try to engineer circumstances that forestall future problems.
Thank you. That will be ten billion dollars please :-)
Jim,
You sound just like Dr Evil and his $1 million dollar world ransom!
$10 billion for that solution would be peanuts! There may however be some probs with implementation, not least getting worldwide agreement on what common property actually is and how it is fairly shared at the most basic level. Are we going to "ration" it, as a well-known blogger suggested some time ago?
Trusted Third Party.
Me :-)
Post a Comment