From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 12:39:43 MST
John K Clark wrote:
> >>Me:
> >>The Kyoto Protocol if adopted would cost between 150 to 350 billion
> >>dollars every year (that's Billion with a B) and for all that it
> >>would mean the warming you would see in 2100 would be
> >>postponed until 2106.
>
> "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com> Wrote:
>
> > That is hardly accurate. The protocols project benefit is
> > longer than that.
>
> It's probably even worse. There is quite good article about it at
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307.html
> The key findings are below:
>
> "The Kyoto agreement--if fully complied with--would likely reduce the gross
> domestic product of the United States by 2.3 percent per year. However,
> according to a climate model of the National Center for Atmospheric Research
> recently featured in Science, the Kyoto emission-control commitments would
> reduce mean planetary warming by a mere 0.19 degree Celsius over the next 50
> years. If the costs of preventing additional warming were to remain
> constant, the Kyoto Protocol would cost a remarkable 12 percent of GDP per
> degree of warming prevented annually over a 50-year period."
I very much question such numbers. The 2.3% figure, much less
the 12% figure assume no new technology already in accord with
Kyoto comes into play. This is highly unlikely. I also
question whether a "mere 0.19 degree Celsius" is all that
adherence would buy us although I admittedly do not have enough
relevant knowledge to do more than to amass various opinions
about the benefits.
If what you quote is right then why isn't the US stance drafted
in terms of this research and the research carefully
peer-reviewed? It would certainly look a lot more reasonable
than a relatively unexplained refusal.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:30 MST