EU Promises and Goals vs Reality

Unlike the US where Trump wants nothing to green deals, the EU has made a number of pie in the sky promises.

Eurointelligence, mocks the promises in Reasons to be Wary of the Green Deal.

In theory, green technology could be to Europe what digital has been to the US and what artificial intelligence promises to be for China. We have our doubts, though. The EU is clearly overselling the green deal. The green share in EU projects is vastly exaggerated through dubious rounding-up practices, a creative accounting method that would land you in prison if you tried it on your tax returns. The EU has still not kicked the habits of the Juncker investment plan: a castle in the air combining hype and leveraged aspirations. 

The hard bit is not setting ambitious targets, like the recently proposed 55% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 relative to 1990. We noted an article in FAZ this morning by Hendrik Kafsack, who points out that this target requires, at a minimum, the following sectors to be completely CO2-emissions-free: energy production, traffic, buildings, and almost the entire manufacturing economy. He writes that the EU has picked all the low-hanging fruit, but has yet to take the tough decisions. De-carbonisation will be very expensive. And these decisions will only be made if the rest of the world adopts the same targets. Otherwise, production will simply relocate.

We agree with Kafsack that a CO2 border tax is absolutely required to prevent this relocation. We also agree with him that emissions trading is probably the best instrument to achieve the target. Sectoral micromanagement, of the car industry for example, has become necessary because the system is not working as expected. 

Eurointelligence supports much of this nonsense, but at least they are realistic about things. 

Unless and until China is willing to act, nothing is going to happen. 

It's easy to make goals and promises, but the costs are enormous and it's impossible to make targets for others.

Meanwhile, technology advances are doing quite nicely on their own accord. In contrast to what Green New Deal advocates say, the world will not end in 10 years even if we do nothing at all.

For discussion of the costs, please see AOC's Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing .

Also see AOC "New Green Deal" Stunningly Absurd: Far More Ridiculous Than Expected

By the way, how many years ago was it that Green New Deal advocates said the world would end in 10 years?

Mish

Australia is Burning: Blame the Greens and the Arsonists

At least 15 million acres of Australia have been devastated by wildfires. Climate change activists are up in arms.

More Green New Deal Ideas Suitable for the Ash Can

After a brief respite from green new deal nuttiness, ideas are cropping up again, this time from the UK.

AOC's Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing

A think-tank led by a former Congressional Budget Office director has come up with a price of the New Green Deal.

Lie of the Day: Going 100% Green Will Pay For Itself in 7 Years

A Stanford University professor says the world can go totally green by spending $73 trillion.

Hypocrite Democrat Senators Refuse to Back AOC's Green New Deal

Democrat senators were put to the test today. All but four flunked.

AOC "New Green Deal" Stunningly Absurd: Far More Ridiculous Than Expected

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) released her bill for a "Green New Deal". It's stunningly absurd.

Rise of the Greens = Deindustrialization of Germany

The Green Party is on the rise in Europe. Ramifications are immense, starting with the deindustrialization of Germany.

Why Brexit Must Be Delivered (And Johnson Will Do It)

There is no question Johnson will deliver Brexit. The only question is "How?"