WOW! HUGE EUROPEAN BACKDOWN

Environmental groups have been angered by a decision by the European Commission to shelve its long-term environmental strategy because of concerns that it would constrict Europe’s economy and destroy too many jobs. In an unprecedented change of direction in EU policy, José Manuel Barroso, the President of the Commission, ordered the suspension of the air-pollution strategy after he saw an assessment that showed that although it would help to prevent 350,000 premature deaths annually, it would cost businesses and consumers nearly €15 billion (£10 billion) a year. After a fractious meeting between pro-environmentalist and pro-business commissioners, Senhor Barroso ordered a review of six other strategies due out shortly, on water quality, waste, soil, natural resources, pesticides and the urban environment. The strategies, which have taken years to prepare, propose detailed environmental policies that would have entailed a series of new regulations.

“There has to be a balance between the benefits for the environment and the overall costs,” Françoise Le Bail, his spokeswoman, said, adding that the problems were not the reports’ “objectives, but more the way they are implemented”.

Senhor Barroso, an economic liberal, had previously made clear that he thought the European Union was already doing well on protecting the environment and needed instead to pay more attention to boosting its economy. The shelving of the environment strategies marks a triumph for the British Government, which has called on the Commission to stop producing regulations that damage businesses. An impact assessment had suggested that the air- pollution strategy alone would cost between €5.9 billion and €14.9 billion a year from 2020.

Senhor Barroso was supported by Günter Verheugen, the Industry Commissioner, and Charlie McCreevy, the Internal Market Commissioner; Peter Mandelson, the Trade Commissioner, is thought to be sympathetic. One Commission official said: “The more you curb pollution, the greater the costs and the less the benefits. This has to be seen in the context of the Commission programme to relaunch the economy.”

It is a humiliating defeat for Stavros Dimas, the Environment Commissioner, who, hours before Senhor Barroso had shelved the strategies, said that they were ready to be announced. One of his officials said: “We are disappointed. But we have support from a number of commissioners.” Campaigners fear that the environment is being sacrificed as the Commission responds to growing political tension over the EU’s 20 million jobless total [I wonder why?]. Tony Long, director of European policy at the World Wide Fund for Nature, said: “It’s very worrying. The political signal is that the environment is not a priority for this Commission. It’s as though everything that smacks of green policy is bad.” The WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace issued a joint letter advising the Commission not to cave in to “powerful business lobby interests”.

Senhor Barroso ordered an “orientation debate” for the Commission to agree the direction of environmental policy. Mme Le Bail said: “The Commission had not discussed the environment. It is a subject on which the President wants to find a consensus.” The Commission said that it had not cancelled its strategies, merely suspended them before the debate.

From The Times





HIV-AIDS should be the top priority

It's more urgent to fight malnutrition and malaria than to tackle climate change, writes Bjorn Lomborg.

In the run-up to the G8 meeting in Scotland, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has called on the international community to set the right global priorities, which he has unequivocally stated should be Africa and global warming. Blair is right in challenging us to set priorities. But his choice is probably wrong. While we should accept his challenge, we should also get our priorities right.

Political leaders rarely espouse clear priorities, preferring to seem capable of giving everything to everybody. They must work with bureaucracies, which are naturally disinclined to have their efforts prioritised, lest they end up as anything less than No. 1. Whenever we prioritise, we not only say where we should do more (which is good) but also where we should not increase our efforts (which is regarded as cynical).

But not talking about priorities does not make the need to prioritise go away. Instead, the choices only become less clear, less democratic, and less efficient. Refusing to prioritise, dealing mainly with the most publicised problems, is wrong. Imagine doctors at a perpetually overrun hospital refusing to perform triage on casualties, merely attending patients as they arrived and fast-tracking those whose families made the most fuss. Refusing to prioritise is unjust, wastes resources and costs lives.

So what should be our top global priorities? This question was addressed in a groundbreaking project involving a long list of the world's top economists at the Copenhagen Consensus last year. A dream team of eight economists, including three Nobel Laureates, confronted the basic question: if the world had an extra $US50 billion ($66 billion) to do good, where could that money best be spent? The top priority turned out to be HIV-AIDS prevention. A comprehensive program would cost $US27 billion, but the potential social benefits would be immense: avoidance of more than 28 million new cases by 2010. This makes it the best investment the world could make, reaping social benefits that outweigh the costs by 40 to 1.

Similarly, providing micronutrients missing from more than half the world's diet would reduce diseases caused by deficiencies of iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A with an exceptionally high ratio of benefits to cost. If we could only find the political will, establishing free trade could be achieved at a very low cost, with benefits of up to $US2.4 trillion a year. Fighting malaria pays off at least five times the costs. Mosquito nets and effective medication could halve the incidence of malaria and would cost $US13 billion.

The list goes on to focus on agricultural technologies to tackle food production and hunger, as well as technologies to boost the supply of clean drinking water and improve sanitation. Given these problems are most acute in Africa, Blair's priorities have some merit.

But the Copenhagen Consensus showed us not only what we should be doing, but also what should not be done - at least not right now. The experts rated responses to climate change extremely low on the to-do list. In fact, the panel called these ventures - including the Kyoto Protocol - bad projects because they cost more than the good they do.

This does not mean that we should ignore climate change. Global warming is real. But the Kyoto rules will make an almost imperceptible difference (postponing temperature increases from 2100 to 2106) at a substantial cost (about $US150 billion a year). Given scarce resources, we must ask ourselves: do we want to do a lot of good now, or a little good much later?

Far from suggesting a policy of laissez faire, this question addresses the pressing problem of prioritisation head on. Why did thousands die in Haiti during the recent hurricanes and not in Florida? Because Haitians are poor. They cannot take preventive measures. Breaking the cycle of poverty by addressing the most pressing issues of disease, hunger, and polluted water will not only do obvious good, but also make people less vulnerable.

The G8 meeting has put global prioritisation on the agenda. Now is the time to get our priorities right. The urgent problem of the poor majority of this world is not climate change. Their problems are more basic: not dying from easily preventable diseases; not being malnourished from lack of simple micronutrients; not being prevented from exploiting opportunities in the global economy by lack of free trade. We can prevent HIV by handing out condoms and improving health education. We can prevent millions from dying from malnutrition simply by distributing vitamin supplements. These are not space-age technologies, but staple goods that the world needs. Doing the best things first would be a great investment in the planet's future. If we are serious about solving the world's most serious challenges, we owe it to ourselves to set the right priorities.

Source





ONE MAYOR RESISTS GREENIE LUNACY

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is on board. So is Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown. And the mayors of Seattle, London, Taipei, Delhi, Melbourne and Moscow. But a list of 53 cities whose mayors have endorsed a high-profile set of 21 goals to improve the environment in their cities won't include the capital of Silicon Valley. San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales has said he will not sign the agreement because, while laudable, some of the goals are not achievable.

Unveiled June 5 in San Francisco at the United Nations World Environment Day, the list, known as the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords, includes goals for protecting groundwater, expanding parks, reducing garbage and cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. ``Ron believes that when you sign up to do something, the goals should be reachable and doable,'' said David Vossbrink, a spokesman for Gonzales. ``Otherwise you breed false expectations and disappointment. Let's focus on those things we can do.''

The decision isn't sitting well with environmentalists, and some leaders in business and government. They say San Jose risks losing out on an opportunity to showcase substantial environmental gains already made, and to set an example for other cities around the world. ``Not achievable? That sounds like a very bureaucratic excuse for not joining with other world leaders to make an important stand,'' said Ted Smith, founder of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.....

Vossbrink said a staff member for San Jose's Environmental Services Department reviewed the U.N. accords. The city already is doing at least eight of the goals, Vossbrink said, including encouraging ``green building'' standards, promoting high-density growth and taking steps to protect its drinking water. But other items are not realistic, he said. He cited one goal urging cities to provide a park within half a kilometer -- or about a quarter-mile -- of every resident by 2015. ``We'd have to raze large numbers of buildings,'' he said.

Other goals that Vossbrink said are not achievable for San Jose include reducing waste going to landfills to zero by 2040, or offering menus with 20 percent organic food at city-run cafeterias and snack bars in seven years, he said....

The San Jose City Council still may take the issue up this summer. ``I'm disappointed that he feels this isn't something the city should be on record as supporting,'' said San Jose Councilwoman Linda LeZotte, who spoke at the U.N. event. Already, San Jose has one of the cleanest wastewater treatment systems in California. Its recycling rates are higher than nearly every U.S. city's. It is the largest American city with an urban growth boundary protecting open space. ``We're the 10th-largest American city,'' said Lezotte. ``We're an environmental leader. This list is a goal. You sign on and start achieving things. You lead by example.''

More here

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************