Benny Peiser's mailing list brought some interesting news from the world of climate policies,
In other words, they plan a global trade war against all skeptical nations. Cute. ;-)
Let me tell you who loses in such a trade war. Well, the answer is surprisingly that both sides lose. Trade is good for both sides, the seller and the buyer: that's why they agree to do the transaction. It follows that a trade war is bad for both sides: the seller (mostly China) and the buyer (mostly America).
However, there is still a sense in which the U.S. will lose more if this insanity is adopted: China and others will still be able to do business with others, circumventing the U.S. trading partners. On the other hand, the U.S. is willing to enter a trade war with the whole sensible world that doesn't adopt the measures.
You know, it's not just the skeptics who don't believe global warming (and this group is around 50% of the mankind). It's also the belivers who are just not "brave" enough to transform their belief into suicidal economic policies. The future U.S., previously the top champion of the free trade in the world, already weakened by insane and futile CO2 regulation on its own territory, wants to enter a trade war with a significant portion of the world - which will probably include BRIC and others. Wow.
I wonder whether the green nutcases will also start to threaten the skeptical world with nuclear weapons. You may choose: 0.5 °C of man-made warming (or cooling) in the 21st century, or a global nuclear Armageddon? Which of these two "catastrophes" is worse? ;-) The laws of Nature imply that we will only get the first one (i.e. nothing happens) if we manage to stop the fanatics but the historical experience suggests that we may get both if we will fail to do so.
And that's the memo.