All the rhetoric aside…i have never read a concise explanation of wht it would COST the average American citizen, if the governemnt decided to comply with the Kyoto accords 9which are actions intended to reduce the threat of global warming). The USA has been criticized for refusing to accept the accord…but i really wonder how oneropus it would be.
Does anyone have some hard facts? Would it make life harder? or are the accords designed to actually save money?
Its hard getting objective answers, as this is such a politically charged issue. :smack:
I have no strong opinions on the Kyoto accords specifically, but:
- Most of the world (including most of the industrialized world) has signed on, and if it’s affordable for them, you’d expect we could afford it too; and
- What’s the alternative? If the Bush Administration thinks there’s a better way, they’ve had time to figure out what it is. Sure, GWB’s had other things on his mind, but most of the spadework is done by people several levels down in the bureaucracy, and he’s got Energy and EPA heads to make sure the worker bees are moving things in a generally acceptable direction.
This is a problem that has to be dealt with; the long-run costs of not dealing with it are pretty damned high. The possible consequences of inaction on Social Security is that promised benefits might have to be reduced by 27% in forty years. That’s trivial, compared to the possible consequences of inaction on global warming.
Meant to include: list of signatories.
Such as longer growing seasons in Canada and Russia? Some places would benefit from global warming.
No, that’s the problem. Even if their projections were really true in every detail (and I highly doubt it), the Treaty will do vityually nothing. Statistical abberations will likely wipe out their proposed reductions in any case.
Frankly, most of the countries supposedly signing it have done little to nothing to comply. Moreover, the money that we would spend on it would be much better spent upgrading infrastrucure and improving technology. It’s a horribly inefficient program for a suspect goal.
Not if drought conditions dominate those longer growing seasons.
smiling bandit: Even if their projections were really true in every detail (and I highly doubt it), the Treaty will do vityually nothing. Statistical abberations will likely wipe out their proposed reductions in any case.
Frankly, most of the countries supposedly signing it have done little to nothing to comply.
Any cites for this? My impression was that, while the Kyoto standards are indeed considered inadequate by themselves to make a substantial dent in the effects of anthropogenic warming, they’re a good first step.
sb: * Moreover, the money that we would spend on it would be much better spent upgrading infrastrucure and improving technology.*
Judging from the recent energy bill, however, the opportunity to do so is being largely bypassed in favor of fossil-fuel-centered business-as-usual. As Rufus noted, the people putting up the most resistance to the Kyoto commitments don’t seem to have any substantially useful ideas of their own about addressing the problem.
Or it might make all the difference in the world. Global climate is by no means a linear system, in which we might get to the point where climate change is clearly having drastic negative effects and say “Whoa! OK, I guess the tree-huggers were right after all. Let’s now reduce our emissions and get back to how we were.”
Global climate is highly non-linear, and the big worry is that somehwere, we don’t know where, is a “tipping point” of CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration, a point of no return past which the [time-delayed effects[/url would be catastrophic no matter what we subsequently did. We are currently at [url=http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg]378ppm and rising by 3ppm per year.
![would be catastrophic no matter what we subsequently did. We are currently at [url=http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg]378ppm](http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/01.17.jpg){kind=link}
Most climate experts think that we cannot risk exceeding 450ppm, and that the necessary mechanisms to avoid this are eminently affordable. Kyoto might just be the difference between loading and avoiding the camel-breaking straw, but stronger measures are probably necessary.
To suggest that this uncertainty means we should do nothing at all is utter, selfish recklessness which our grandchildren may well, rightly, spit in our faces and on our graves for.
Ugh, sorry:
Global climate is highly non-linear, and the big worry is that somehwere, we don’t know where, is a “tipping point” of CO2 concentration, a point of no return past which the time-delayed effects would be catastrophic no matter what we subsequently did. We are currently at 378ppm and rising by 3ppm per year.
Upgrading technology would be a vastly more efficient solution than top-down force-fed reductions.
Although most of the grenies can’t comprehend it, Bush did the environment major favors by allowing companies to upgrade equipment again without neccessarily instituing grossly expensive “clean” techniques. Proponents of those laws said they would force companies to clen up. Unfortunately, they simply decided it was better to run old dirty machinery into the ground. You can’t shortcut economics.
:rolleyes: Yes, of course. Being your opponent doesn’t just mean I’;m wrong, I’m a selfish and horrible person and should just die. Or it takes into account the idea that our ability to improve our technology is a better bet than blowing away our industrial base permanently. How much of the world do you want to impoverish today?
Oh well. In that case it’s too late already. You can go bomb the rising 3rd-world infrastructure if you want to. Kyoto will not, in fact help at all by this measure.
smiling bandit: Upgrading technology would be a vastly more efficient solution than top-down force-fed reductions.
Agreed, but is there any evidence that we’re going to get significant environmental improvements solely via voluntary technology upgrades, within a time frame that will have a meaningful effect on climate change? Sometimes you have to resort to top-down regulatory reforms because waiting for the market to respond would be too little, too late.
sb: Although most of the grenies can’t comprehend it, Bush did the environment major favors by allowing companies to upgrade equipment again without neccessarily instituing grossly expensive “clean” techniques.
Again, do you have any cites for this? Are companies actually upgrading equipment in a way that significantly helps the environment?
sb: * Kyoto will not, in fact help at all by this measure.*
Once more: cite?
OK, so during the past four years with no greenhouse gas regs, what has private industry done, bottom-up, to reduce CO2?
Detroit’s been selling more Hummer H2s and other large SUVs, which (being gas hogs) involve putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s bottom-up for you. Got an example to support your claim?
OK, so what specifically are you talking about here, and what does it have to do with greenhouse gas emissions?
WTF?? Based on the numbers SentientMeat cited, we’ve got 24 years. In a rational world, it would be time to get our asses in gear, not give up.
Note the number of "maybe"s and "might"s in my post, bandit. You are suggesting everything might be OK without Kyoto or indeed any governmental protocol, I am suggesting that they might make all the difference between approaching the precipice and taking the fatal step further. Of course I agree that technology can be part of the solution - what I an d most climatologist suggest is that, actually, we should be trying pretty much everything we can, and that even weak protocols like Kyoto give us a better chance of avoiding any precipice, if there is such a thing, than nothing at all.
Hopefully, more than would be impoverished without any governmental action at all. A difficult balance, I’ll grant, but even non-expert skeptics like Bjorn Lombourg accept that the vast majority of negative effects of climate change will be on those nations. At the moment, we are emitting the forces which will negatively affect them. Let us put our own houses in order, such that if they subsequently emit themselves into oblivion we will bear less of the responsibility.
450 ppm is at least a couple of decades away - we have adequate time to at least ameliorate the most negative effects of climate change. And who knows, maybe the critical tipping point is nearer, say, 600ppm? This is still not cheap, but eminently possible to acheive even accounting for third-world growth. But we must start now. Future generations might read this very thread and wonder what on Earth we were playing at, and even the CIA recognises how bad it might get if even the more conservative IPCC models come true.
Erratum: Hopefully, less than would be impoverished without any governmental action at all.
I realize this is GD, not GQ, but no one has yet come close to answering the OP’s question.
$20-150b/year for the U.S. to comply with Kyoto…
at least that is what the folks at
http://www.earthsky.com/shows/edgeshow.php?t=20040527
say.
How do you think companies will work within the emissions-trading system other than by upgrading technology?
Obviously they will use the most efficient methods to the most efficient extent (theoretically, to the point where the marginal cost of the investment equals the price of emission credits).
On the emissions-trading mechanism: Site of an Austrian company specializing in emissions trading services. Gives an insight in the arch-capitalist way in which the Kyoto Protocol is implemented in the EU.
I don’t know how I would spend it, but in Ohio we’ve wasted decades collecting $10/year for e-checks on cars in “bad air” zones. This may have been useful in the days of carburetors but most of the cars on the road today are computer controlled so the ROI for this hasn’t panned out. Fortunately e-checks are going away. I would rather be taxed for the same amount and have the money spent on industrial projects. This could be done in the form of tax rebates for companies who change to new technology.
Maybe that’s just too easy, I don’t know.