Two economists have a piece in the Guardian risibly lauding the EU for its leadership on global warming on the basis that Europe has made promises and put schemes in place. Their argument at best distills to: everyone knows we have to do something, and those things are something.
There is no mention of the performance of Europe in satisfying either the promises or the schemes. Just that they were made and exist. Either the writers are in on the joke about the “greatest threat” claim being a bit of hyperventilation, or they are fetishizing process over substance to an entirely new degree.
No mention of emission reductions from the cap-and-trade scheme (they don’t exist). Nor is there mention of the massive fraud the scheme has fostered (which certainly does exist). Nor do they acknowledge the growing body of evidence of windfall profiteering from the one thing Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme has done — raise energy costs.
The only reservation they have is that the price is too low and volatile, calling for a tax on top, to “taxify” it. Paging Stephen Colbert. Anyone unable to truthify their arguments shouldn’t be listened to when calling to taxify anything.
The utility of this silliness is best exemplified with its assessment that “Before it even began, Copenhagen was at once already a success” (also then calling it “meagre” (sic) and “a failure”). Mmm. Everything’s a success — even failures; and everything affirms their theory — even things that don’t.
If there were a good argument for cap-and-trade we would have heard it by now. Instead we get this.