Subsidizing Failure: "Alternative" Energy and Carbon Credits

This story really gets me… the International Energy Agency says we’ll all have to pay more so people will feel more inclined to start driving hybrids (and doing other things, too):

The International Energy Agency has warned that the price of carbon credits will have to more than double from the levels they now trade at in Europe to make high-tech solutions to climate change economically attractive.

In its annual World Energy Outlook report released on Tuesday, the rich countries’ watchdog also warns that the world’s use of fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – will have to peak by the early 2020s.

Basically what they are saying is that there is no financial incentive for companies to rush forward investing in “alternative” energy because gas, oil, and natural gas are so cheap.  The way to “fix” this situation?  Well, it’s not market based that’s for sure… it’s the Carbon Tax.  The Carbon Tax (or Carbon Credits whatever you choose) is essentially a made up figure that says Country X can only release Y amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and if they want to release more than Y they will need to pay Z per ton.

Why the CO2 tax?  Call it the Liberal Consumption Tax or the “Global Warming” Fund:

In industrialised countries the price of carbon will need to reach $50 a tonne by 2020 and $110 by 2030. In developing countries the price of carbon would need to reach $30 a tonne by 2020 and $50 by 2030.

So, for example, these people want the United States to pay $50.00 per ton of CO2 whereas a “developing” country would only pay $30.00 per ton.  “Developed” countries were once “developing” ones that got to where they are by essentially industrializing and exporting their goods (steel, cars, airplanes, semi-conductors, etc…).  So already the IEA wants to place a $20.00 per ton of CO2 disadvantage on “developed” countries.  What do you think is going to happen to jobs?  They will go where it is cheaper to produce… namely “developing” countries.  And for the priviledge of “saving the planet” we will be paying to send our jobs overseas.

And people thought Republicans liked “offshoring.”

So just why should we do this insane thing?

The greatest responsibility lies with the US, but the greatest scope for change will be in China, which if it meets its own targets, will be responsible for more than a quarter of the emissions reductions the IEA says is needed to avoid the worst climate change risk.

Before we get into the absurd Liberal ideas about “global warming” we should note that in the entire world and all of the CO2 in it, humans create about 0.117% of the stuff.  CO2 is a naturally occuring substance.  Rotting leaves in your yard?  They produce CO2.  Birds breathing?  They create CO2.  Trees and plants at night?  They create CO2.

Back to this Carbon Tax thing.  So the IEA wants to see $50.00 per ton by 2020.  Currently in the EU CO2 trades at about $21.00.  These people know that all the “alternative” energy that’s produced loses money.  Solar, wind, geothermal… all lose money.  Solar and wind cannot be relied upon for power generation either as it is not always sunny nor is it always windy.  Yes, there are solar plants that use the sun to heat salt so it can release heat when there’s no sun but solar plants are not practical for most places as they require too much room and are one of the most expensive forms of energy we can generate.

So the “thinkers” at the IEA are trying to use “global warming” scare tactics to convince people to ship jobs overseas by raising the CO2 tax.  They are very happy the more expensive oil gets because they see their goals getting closer to reality:

Fatih Birol, the IEA’s chief economist, said at the launch of the agency’s annual flagship World Energy Outlook: “This would be a revolution. This revolution could only take place if there is a financial signal to the energy industry.” He added: “We need a deal in Copenhagen. We need a signal for the energy industry. Without that, nothing will move.”

Mr Birol said: “The era of cheap oil is over. We said it last year and continued to say it throughout the year even though oil went to $30 a barrel [at the end of 2008 and start of 2009].”

It is obvious the IEA is simply pushing whatever it needs to in order to convince countries to slit their own throats regarding jobs, manufacturing, and taxes by using whatever scare tactics it can, even when there is no clear science behind it:

The International Energy Agency warned today that the world’s use of fossil fuels will have to peak by 2020 if it is to escape a dangerous spike in global temperatures.

If the technology is that good, let it stand on its own two feet in the marketplace.  Interestinly enough, nuclear power is not mentioned… that is not trendy enough.

Did you like this article? If so, get new articles every day for free via RSS or Email

Related posts:

1. An Alternative Energy?
2. Big Union, Kalifornia, and Green Energy
3. India and China Won't Play the Foolish Liberal Games Obama Wants
4. Cap and Trade, Obama, and More Hot Air = Trade War?
5. First Polar Bears, Now National Security