Did a little research on Kyoto, which has always interested me. Smarty (That is me, --Jerrek) is right on the money it seems. If you look at the costs of the treaty, and the uncertain benefits, it isn’t really clear why Kyoto should be ratified on pure environmental concerns. Here is what I found:
The Cost. The Clinton Administration studied Kyoto and found that the CO2 emission guidelines imposed by it would decrease US Gross Domestic product by 3-4% and cost the US about $300Billion. To put this in perspective, the current recession, the one in which so many Americans have lost heir jobs, has experienced a GDP growth of about 1%/year.
This means that if Kyoto were implemented, the effect on the American economy would be catastrophic. Companies would lose profitability and some would go bankrupt. Unemployment would rise. Millions of Americans would lose their jobs and be unable to provide for their families. All that these people have worked for, their homes, their retirement, their college savings, and their livelihood would be erased.
For the purpose of this post, substitute “Canadians” for “Americans,” and you Canadians will experience a similar thing.
-The Exemption. The Third World is exempt from these requirements! The obvious retort is that the US currently is responsible for over 25% of the world’s CO2 production. This ignore two things. First, why isn’t the Kyoto scheme then proportional to CO2 emission instead of exempting the Third World.
Secondly, this ignores the potential CO2 emission of these countries as they industrialize. 1,000,000,000 Indians and 1,000,000,000 Chinese will be exempt. And these two countries are in the process of industrializing right now. The amount of pollution they will produce, particularly given the lack of impetus to develop technological reduction means, is staggering. And the framers of Kyoto would have us believe that this is good for the environment?????????
Third, the exemption provide the Third World with an amazing competitive advantage. The ability to not have to incorporate pollution reduction into production costs will give them an amazing edge. The effect will be a huge trade deficit and the loss of jobs.
The benefit?
What is the benefit of reducing emissions? I have seen some estimates that Kyoto may reduce emission by less than 1 degree. What is the practical effect of this? The truth is, no on really knows the benefits. Yet, despite this, people would ratify a treaty that is certain to cause economic devastation.
Global Warming. Despite the fact that GW is taken by certain segments as revealed truth, the science remains very uncertain. Over the past 100 years the temperatures have increased about 1 degree. And there have been no conclusive studies showing why. Future projections of temperature growth are based on computer “Models” with very questionable assumptions and scientific methodology. There are SO many variables.
For example, long before humans were a blip on the evolutionary map, Earth’s temperatures wildly fluctuated. The Earth is 4 Billion years old, but we only have temperature data for about 100 years – less than .0001% of this time. How much CO2 do forest take out of the air?
At the very least, we need more time to address the flawed methodology of the Models and develop peer reviewed studies that can more accurately reflect all of the variables. To embark on a Trillion dollar CO2 reduction scheme, w/o knowing the benefits, if any, is insane. Even if the GW Models are accurate, we don’t have any idea if Kyoto will have an effect on GW. We simply do not have an understanding of GW, all the variables, and what role we humans play in the temp.
GW is a THEORY, but it has become a religion for many in the European Green parties.
