CO2, climate change and massive waste!!

I am going to have to put another disclaimer at the beginning of this post and explain that I have still not worked out how to change the format, and cannot seperate my posts into paragraphs. I thought I would copy this from Christopher Monckton because he puts it a lot better than I could. So I take no credit whatsoever for any of the words written here, I just thought this was quite interesting and scary!! So here it is: ' Chris Huhne babbles insanely that carbon trading is the "most cost-effective" method of making "global warming" go away. However, as recently as last summer his department admitted that it had done no calculations whatsoever to demonstrate how much "global warming" would be forestalled by the £36,000 per household - the price of a used Porsche - that the Climate Change Act has committed us to spend on Planet-Saving measures between now and 2050. The Department had not got around to doing the calculations because its chief number-cruncher did not know how to do them. So, working with scientists on several continents, I have had the sums done. Here are the results. Carbon trading in the EU, which directly increases the cost of electricity, gasoline, and all manufactures, transport industries and services dependent upon them, is running at $92 billion a year, according to the World Bank. Make that $920 billion by 2020, by which time the EU aims to forestall 20% of its emissions. EU emissions are about a sixth of global emissions. So that $920 billion will buy us a 3.3% reduction in global emissions. According to the IPCC, the business-as-usual CO2 concentration in the absence of any "global warming" policies would be 412 ppmv by 2020, falling to - wait for it, wait for it, - 411.267 ppmv in that year as a result of the EU’s carbon trading scheme. This tiny reduction in CO2 concentration means a tiny reduction in global temperature. Warming forestalled by 2020 would be a dizzying one two-hundred-and-fiftieth of a Celsius degree, at a cost of $920 billion. So the cost-effectiveness of the EU's carbon-trading scheme in making "global warming" not happen - even if we generously assume that the only thing the EU is doing to address supposed "catastrophic climate change" is carbon trading - would be $228 trillion per Celsius degree of "global warming" forestalled. What does this mean? If the cost-effectiveness of all CO2-reduction policies worldwide were equivalent to that of the EU’s carbon trading scheme, forestalling the IPCC’s predicted 3.4 Celsius of "global warming" in the 21st-century (none of which has happened in the first decade of the century), would cost 13% of global GDP throughout the century. More than one-eighth of everything the world produces would have to be spent on stopping "global warming". These eye-watering figures make it quite plain why the King Canute Department has not gotten around to publishing any cost-effectiveness calculations. It knows perfectly well that all measures to forestall "global warming" by regulating or taxing carbon dioxide are cost-ineffective, and that carbon trading is less cost-effective than most. True, the Thanet Wind Array, with its $2 billion subsidy, is even less cost-effective than the EU's carbon trading scam (er, "scheme"). If all measures to make "global warming" go away were as cost-ineffective as the Thanet wind-farm, almost 30% of everything we make and do would have to be spent on stopping this century's predicted "global warming". Mr. Huhne, it seems, has an unerring instinct for picking losers. It is time to close down the King Canute Department, lock, stock and barrel, and to blow up the wind farms that are the monuments to his folly (those of them that have not already been sabotaged by bird-lovers, that is). Enjoy the sunshine while it lasts - the next Ice Age is already more than 5000 years overdue. If it comes, Huhne will really have something to blub about.'