[extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Kyoto bill creates $1 billion deficit

[spike]

I'm proud of New Zealand for being honest enough to
admit this.  I must conclude that whatever is true for
NZ is likely true elsewhere as well: they signed on for
the money, at least partly.

Assuming that, what happens when the Kyoto agreement
is no longer profitable and starts to actually cost 
big money.  Why would we think that carbon-deficit nations 
would or could pay up?  Would the prime ministers
of the really poor nations tell their people their taxes 
are going up in order to pay for carbon dioxide emissions?
What if the really rich nations figured out how to reduce
emissions?  Would the poor nations then pay the rich?  
Willingly?  I think not.  And even if they did, I wouldn't
want to take their money.

The right way to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
is to build nuclear power plants.  I see no better way.

Excellent article Terry!  {8-]  spike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin
> Subject: [extropy-chat] FWD (PvT) Kyoto bill creates $1 billion deficit
> 
> The Greenies of New Zealand were panting to ratify Kyoto because they
> thought they'd make a killing selling carbon credits to other
> countries. But then...
> 
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?mode=headlines&c_id=3&ObjectID=1033113
> 0
> 
> Thursday June 30, 2005
> 
> Kyoto bill creates $1 billion deficit
> 
> 17.06.05
> 
> By Brian Fallow
> 
> Taxpayers will be at least $1 billion worse off under revised
> Government estimates of the costs of the Kyoto treaty to combat
> global warming.
> 
> National's environment spokesman, Nick Smith, says the party, if
> elected, will consider pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, despite the
> cost to New Zealand's international reputation, given the "hammering"
> the economy will take under the latest numbers. "It's a huge
> stuff-up." [Yes. Yes it is. --BW]...
> ...
> When we ratified Kyoto in 2002 one of the reasons Hodgson gave for
> doing so was that not to ratify would be to set fire to "a very big
> cheque". Then we were assumed to have a net credit position of 55
> million tonnes.