Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (92941)	8/1/2001 9:36:00 AM
From: Frank Pembleton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Alice in Kyotoland Peter Foster National Post Psst. Did we get a deal for you! That appears to be Ottawa's spin on last week's murky agreement in Bonn to keep the Kyoto zombie lurching forward. Don't worry, whirrs Ottawa to industry and Alberta, we didn't sell you down the river. Indeed, we did such a good job at weaseling out of the ludicrously rash commitments we made in 1997 that there will hardly be any pain at all. It might only cost pocket change, say 5- or 10-bill. Indeed, we did such a good job that we just can't release the details; it's not diplomatic to gloat. Also, the oil industry would be beaming from ear to ear, while Greenpeace would have a hissy fit. So just shut up and trust us (and with a bit of luck, the whole thing will go away). With luck, it will, but Kyoto's aftermath becomes ever-stranger. If one were to seek literary references, Lewis Carroll, Shakespeare, Jonathan Swift and Kafka would all have to be in the starting lineup. How could one not invoke Alice in Wonderland when listening to Ottawa's claims that, although Canada committed to reduce greenhouse gases to a level 6% below those of 1990 by 2012, and although we are some 13% above 1990 levels, we are already halfway there! Meanwhile, the great trick of the Bonn meetings was to mobilize Canada's forests -- like Birnam Wood creeping up on Macbeth -- so that they could be factored in as carbon "sinks." "Kitchen-sink" was a kind of British drama. "Carbon sink" has become a North American comedy. We have already glimpsed the rich satirical potential in the creation some years ago of Costa Rican Carbon Bonds. Emerging from the fertile brain of Maurice Strong -- cordial MC to the UN wonkasphere -- these pieces of paper promise not to destroy a swathe of forest. Something like: Pay-up-or-I'll-shoot-this-dog. It is difficult to see how Canada's forests can represent a net reduction in its carbon dioxide emissions. But then, the point isn't to comply with Kyoto; it is to avoid it. And we have yet to see those devilish details. The other key "concessions" won by Ottawa and its allies in Bonn were allegedly over emissions trading, under which major greenhouse gas emitters are allowed to trade permits. This had been pushed hard by the Americans as a "market-based, least-cost" solution. Inevitably it was not pushed so hard at Bonn because President Bush had already washed his hands of the process. But a "cap-and-trade" system is a parody of a free market. Its ultimate objectives are set by political and bureaucratic overlords. It equates to the totalitarian definition of initiative: "finding the best way to carry out an order." Moreover, resistance would ultimately be futile. This is where we get to Kafka. Who will oversee the gigantic bureaucratic machine that Kyoto has always implied? Who will set the caps? Who will police the emissions? Who will be the trading system's "Securities Commission?" What penalties will there be? How will they be enforced? These are not merely tedious details. They imply new global agencies of stunning -- indeed, unprecedented -- power, displaying all the competence and honesty that we have come to expect from the UN. Of course, bureaucrats, consultants and policy wonks don't see it that way; they rub their hands at a huge, well-paid, well-tenured, lifelong challenge. They, after all, are well used to attempting the impossible. They thrive on well-intended intervention, not on achieving objectives. Russia is cited by Ottawa as a possible trading partner of enormous potential. It is one of the rip-roaring successes of the Kyoto system. It has managed to achieve stunning emissions savings by the simple expedient of economic collapse (This point deserves more than parody. Some of Kyoto's strongest supporters do not regard economic collapse as entirely undesirable. Mr. Strong, for example, has on numerous occasions suggested that an economic meltdown might be just what the world needs to bring it to his senses.) In this regard, say Ottawa's spinners, the absence of the United States from the Kyoto agreement may be great news, since U.S. companies won't be bidding up those Russian non-emissions! We might be able to snap up permits at a mere $2 a tonne! But although he might not have signed on to Kyoto, Mr. Bush is still under enormous pressure to take action on global warming, and emissions trading remains a clear and present danger. Among many other devils-in-the-details, emissions trading could create powerful vested interests. The vision put forward by some U.S. analysts is of a world run on the same system as Manhattan cab licensing, with incumbents violently opposed to further permits being issued. Just imagine the world run by ultra-Machiavellian socialist Manhattan cab drivers with PhDs. There would be no place to hide, unless you headed for the carbon sink.

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (92941)	8/1/2001 10:56:17 AM
From: Terry D	Respond to of 95453

From today's Times - not even a consensus from the industry nytimes.com You may need a subscription - so here is a piece of a longish article August 1, 2001 Energy Executives Urge Some Gas-Emission Limits on Bush By ANDREW C. REVKIN and NEELA BANERJEE With President Bush continuing to oppose international or domestic restrictions on gases linked to global warming, among the losers are energy companies that favor government action and have already spent millions on voluntary efforts to cut emissions. Given little credence by the White House despite large expenditures on lobbying and longstanding ties to administration officials, these companies are shifting their focus to Congress, where several bills that would impose emissions restrictions are being debated or prepared. But in that effort, the companies face formidable opposition from other energy concerns and trade groups that are fighting against any limits. "There's an enormous amount of lobbying going on," said Rob Long, vice president for government affairs at the National Mining Association. "It's a three-ring circus." Among the companies that want the United States to embrace some form of greenhouse-gas limits are oil producers including the Royal Dutch/Shell Group and BP, as well as power-generating companies like Cinergy (news/quote), AEP and Entergy (news/quote), all of which have moved to reduce their own emissions. Another company holding this view is the Enron Corporation (news/quote) of Houston, whose chairman is Mr. Bush's friend Kenneth L. Lay. Enron was the largest contributor among energy companies last year to the Republican Party. These companies, which include some of the world's biggest producers and users of fossil fuels, have concluded that limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse, or heat-trapping, gases are inevitable. They say that by packaging reductions in greenhouse gas emissions with other environmental measures, like cutting other power plant emissions, they could win concessions on other pollution rules. And to plan long-term investments, they want the predictability that comes from quick adoption of clear rules, although more flexible ones than those agreed to in Bonn a week ago by 178 countries that have accepted the Kyoto Protocol, the worldwide climate agreement that President Bush rejects. Most of these businesses share Mr. Bush's view that the Kyoto agreement could hurt the United States economy and that it unfairly requires emissions reductions only of big industrial nations. But many officials of these companies said Mr. Bush had blundered by rejecting the agreement outright instead of trying to repair it. "What businesses want is policy certainty," an environmental expert for a large international energy company said. "Bush has injected only turbulence."