Green Smokescreen
The EU mandates that that 30% of all EU expenditures be allocated to green projects. Eurointelligence discusses the Green Smokescreen and some amusing math as to how those targets are met.
If you took this target seriously, you would have to reform the Common Agricultural Policy. But the EU failed to do precisely that when they had an opportunity last year. Instead, the EU resorts to cheating.
The European Commission classifies investment in terms of 0%, 40% and 100% green content, and rounds up the numbers to the next higher target. So 1% becomes 40%. 41% becomes 100%.
You can always rely on EU leaders to put appearances ahead of content.
Reform of fiscal rules, a capital markets union, and changes in tax rules would produce more environmental investments and employment than a senseless competition for numerical climate change targets.
I also don’t believe this charade will work politically. When the mendacity of the EU’s climate policy becomes apparent, the centre will not only have lost the victims of the economic crisis, but an entire generation of young voters.
This is the thing with smoke and mirrors: when the smoke lifts, you see clearly.
Greenwashed Out
The above article was published on March 13, 2021.
Eurointelligence reports today in “Greenwashed Out” that lobbyists consider the above demands as too strict.
The Commission has been working to update its green finance taxonomy because the most recent set of guidelines, published in 2019, were deemed too strict by some member states and industry lobbyists.
In layman’s terms, projects that are not green will still be labelled green, which defeats the purpose of the entire endeavor.
Nine members of the 57-strong group have threatened to quit over the latest proposal because it would allow companies that are not currently considered green to claim investments, such as highly efficient steel production, and classify them as taxonomy-aligned.
This means that the proposal will maintain a longstanding practice of mislabeling green investments. Under a previous set of guidelines, a system called the Rio markers was used to round up the green content of investments and projects. A project with even a tiny amount of green content would qualify as 40% green, and anything with more than 40% green content was rounded up to 100% green.
Too Strict!?
Clearly there is a need to round 1% up to 49% and 50% up to 120% or whatever.
In addition, let’s label steel production as green-aligned.
You may love or hate Trump’s approach to green projects but at least he was honest about what he was doing.
Global Net Zero Climate Change Targets are ‘Pie in the Sky’
By 2050 the world population is forecast to grow 9.8 billion, up from 7.9 billion in 2021.
That’s a huge increase in carbon demand even if we reduce per capita demand.
Cherry Picking
Cherry Picking?
What the hell do you think is going to happen when everyone in China and India using mostly coal want higher standards of living?
You reaffirm the big problem ahead is totally outside US control.
Yet, Biden, AOC, etc. think the US can solve this with dollars
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) February 15, 2021
Even if the US footprint fell to zero (it won’t) it’s possible the net effect would be meaningless.
For discussion, please consider Global Net Zero Climate Change Targets are ‘Pie in the Sky’
Mish
Whooo Hoooo one for Trumpolini! As time moves on I bet we find another. He may not have had any idea of what he was doing but just by going opposite of previous administrations is a good starting point!
Will the Middle East be the next straw in his cap!
I think it is more of a stopped clock phenomenon, because yes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
But then it would not matter if he had indeed been right about some things, because like the legal theory if a few good things come from a wicked and evil source they are sadly fruits of a poisoned tree. That is even Hitler built a nice autobahn system, but look at the price they paid for having Hitler as chancellor.
…..time to roll out your little carpet, bend down with your ass up and your head towards Mekka….rrrmm ….The Capitol rather ….4x /day….La ilaha illah Biden, Kamala (or Pelosi) rasul Biden
Fuck you Nazi.
For context, why don’t you mention that CO2 only represents 0.04% of our atmosphere?
Charging a premium for a product and then buying offsets feels like greenwashing, but I suppose that is a more genuine effort than politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists are putting forth-
negative-ice-cream-brand/651851.article
link to thegrocer.co.uk
Interesting wording you used there. CHARGING A PREMIUM FOR A PRODUCT…. Well, who is being charged? Who is actually paying every dime of that premium? In the end it is the consumers. These companies may bag some bragging rights about being “effectively” zero carbon polluters, but it is YOU who pay for that trickery.
I guess they are expecting Greta T. to buy all their ice cream because when I see a brand in the freezer case and it is nearly twice the price of others I am not going to buy it.
“You can always rely on EU leaders to put appearances ahead of content.”
That says it’s all for show.
Actor Harrison Ford railed against carbon output, then flew up to Monterey in his plane just for the fun of it. The virtue signalling is all for show.
The scare mongering routine for political purposes, is getting old.
I used to read this blog to follow economics. Now it is about 60% politics and is just not fun any more. 🙁 I cancelled cable because I got tired of hearing people yell at each other too.
Politics affects economics.
CO2 is a life giving gas. No mention of it at all because we’ve moved past that big stumbling block. Onward!!!
A short thread on the US troop departure from Afghanistan.
There is no mention of how many private military contractors which are paid by the US and allies will remain there. As a note more private military contractors have died in Afghanistan and Iraq than US soldiers. Paying them to further our interests will still be very expensive. If we want to be consistent we should withdraw them too but we won’t. Smoke and mirrors.
Yea, Trump was honest…
This is actually funny
Former cabinet members and top officials in Donald Trump’s administration, including economic adviser Larry Kudlow, have launched a new think tank in an effort to create a policy platform out of the former president’s chaotic approach to governing.
Unlike former presidents such as Ronald Reagan who came into office and governed by an established set of policies and world view, Trump didn’t have a coherent political philosophy and platform that the groups are now trying to create, said Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Trump critic who served in three prior Republican administrations.
“They’re trying to construct a policy world after he’s left office to try and explain after the fact what he stood for on policy,” Wehner said.
He is a disrupter and what disrupters do is break the dam of groupthink and that is what he did. Now Biden has adopted many of his policies. As they say “imitation is the best form of flattery”.
Technology companies engage in creative destruction, ont polticial leaders. Trump didn’t engage in creative destruction anyway, he just brought chaos. There was no method to his madness
I’ll save them the trouble: nihilism.
“… try and explain after the fact what he stood for on policy,”
As discussed above, yes – Trump was a disruption. And a conman. And a grifter. And not always straightforward on his decisions.
But he was actually quite predictable. If something would benefit him, it had a chance of happening. If something did not benefit him, there was no chance.
His policy was “me first”.
Take a few hours and read, “The Rational Optimist” by Matt Ridley. The technology and advancements we live with today were unheard of yesterday. The evolution of science, technology, knowledge and collaboration causes me to think there is a reasonable and affordable solution to address climate change just waiting to be discovered. Until then, do what you can to raise as many people out of poverty as possible to increase the number of people that give a damn about climate change.
I agree 100% and have stated for for years – only to be continually mocked for that view
Don’t agree. A good leader sets challenges and targets . The technology comes as a result of trying to meet that challenge. A lot of advancements came becaue we targeted going to the Moon. If we sat back and just waited for the technology to get better on its own we never would have gone
Until there’s money in it, the smart people aren’t going to work on it. Since the poors will be the ones really suffering when it all goes south, there won’t be money. The rich will simply push the poors out of the habitable areas, and things will continue as always.
I lit the fireplace a few minutes ago. I am tired of being cold. What is wrong with a greenhouse? The dinosaurs loved being warm.
It’s not very pleasant on Venus -:)
The stock market continues to roar.
I would really question those population numbers. Most demographers are predicting (except for Africa) declining populations based on the fertility/death ratios.
“You may love or hate Trump’s approach to green projects but at least he was honest about what he was doing.”
Good grief, Mish! The first slightly positive comment about Trump in 5 years?
He’s made others. He applauded Trump for signing legislation that forces hospitals to disclose their pricing. He also lauded Trump for not getting America into any new wars. Those are 2 recent ones (last month or so). There have been others.
The fun trade is looking pretty good today. I don’t really think gold is going to tank again…..jmho….I might set a higher stop though, just in case we get a smackdown.
Do stops trigger overnight? The big jumps/drops all seem to be happening after hours.
Nope….unfortunately.
After looking at the chart, I cancelled my old stop and decided to not set one at all. My position is small enough not to have to worry, and after a day like today, a correction is expected. As long as the trend isn’t broken, I’ll stay in. We appear to be trending now…watching the dollar. As long as it trends down, risk for gold is less than it has been.
Everything feels risky in this borrowed-money stock market. Can this giant whoopee cushion hold more air?
I disagree with the article. link. If you come up with mandates, private busines will respond by marketing solutions. That’s wha t I’m seeing. We’e getting approached. Some legit, some not so legit but that’s true with eveything. Claims must be invetigated and vetted. Often this also results in saving on electricity which is usually a big expense.
US imposes new sanctions against Russia, expels ten diplomats & targets national debt in move Moscow may view as major escalation link to rt.com
For someone who claims to be an expert in diplomacy, Biden seems to make a lot of boneheaded moves. What do we have to gain by doing this? Russia isn’t a threat any more. Hasn’t been for decades. Meanwhile China can do whatever they want and our current administration will praise everything they do.
It seems that US tries to bring more and more close relations between Russia and China. This is very clever indeed.
Russia has been stirring up our moron population over the internet. Stirred up morons are dangerous.
‘When the mendacity of the EU’s climate policy becomes apparent, the centre will not only have lost the victims of the economic crisis, but an entire generation of young voters.”
The mendacity of the EU leadership seems to be largely ignored, other than by those whose livelihoods are actively been destroyed by the bad policy. They’ve lied about so much for so long, it’s just expected now.
Countries that are late in embracing green technologies wil fall behind, not leap ahead. And companies that invest in such technologies will be better able to compete overseas. It would be like a company specializing in horse driven carriages hoping ot compete with G.M. 100 year ago.
I am tired of repeating the same rhetoric over and over again : WHAT to expect from a entirely useless, grossly overpaid, parasitic asylum of failed politicians, desperately trying to keep up ‘european’, politically correct, yet unsustainable appearances till the age of retirement with a generous golden handshake and impressive pensions … In the US, your corrupt bunch doesn t even have to retire, have they,like your wrinkled Pelosi bitch(pardon my language I can t help it) …That being said Mish, it looks to me like you are beginning to miss good old Trump ?! Thanks for your great blog….have a nice day….(and a great life for that matter) !
I take offense of you calling our august Speaker of the House Pelosi a “bitch”. It is derogatory. The proper term is “female dog”. Please in the future refer to her as “that female dog”.
Calling Pelosi a bitch is indeed offensive, to female dogs.
I am tired of repeating the same rhetoric over and over again
Yeah we are pretty tired of you repeating things also.
Another scam are the so called carbon offsets. You can produce 100 tons of CO2 and then buy some forest land and claim you’re carbon neutral because you didn’t chop down the forest on your land. Even if there was 0 chance of the forest being cut down.
Yes, most of the UKs energy companies claim their electricity supply is 100% green when in fact hardly any are.
Or you burn 100 tons of CO2 and plant trees that will offset 100 tons over the next 40-50 years. Technically green but on a VERY long timeline given the world is ending in 10 years 😉
Have you ever heard of lobbyists trying to change rules, regulations and laws to be more favorable to their positions?
Me neither, but I live under a rock….
Once again..very slowly…China is the biggest low-cost producer for the world of a variety of products. Many of which produce GHG.
The more advanced countries have outsourced their production of GHG to China by pushing production to China.
Look at the graph, the increase in China is matched by a decrease in EU and US.
Yes. The world doesn’t care about doing what’s right. They only care about giving the appearance of doing what’s right.
It’s hard to be exact about the dates, but doing my best at reading the graph, from about 2005 to 2015, carbon output from China tripled, while EU and US output was essentially unchanged. It’s impossible to tell from the graph how much of the increase in China was caused by outsourcing production to China, but it is certainly not true that the increase in China is matched by equal decreases in the EU and the US.