Skeptical of Kyoto?

[TheChadd]

I was wondering if anyone else is skeptical of Kyoto, sorry if there's already a thread based around this by the way.

I personally see Kyoto as nothing but a vote-getter for exploitive politicians accross the world. Doing some research on this for uni, I looked into the copenhagen consensus (fairly old now I think however) and some other sources and it seemed that Kyoto was a really weak, expensive solution to the problem of global warming.

The rough estimates I got was that if Kyoto was abided by perfectly, that we would set global warming back by 6 years over the next 100 - However I am willing to be corrected.

It would appear although the countries which will be most adversely affected by global warming (other than the few small pacific islands which will be affected even if kyoto is abided by... just a little later) are countries which are already struggling. People are starving now, access to fresh water is lacking now, infrastructure is not there now... It would seem that perhaps a better way to spend the money would be to help alleviate these problems now and help these nations for the future of global warming by setting them up with good infrastructure.

Now of course we should still fight global warming, however my suggest would be to spend real money on developing and implimenting new (some already out there) clean energy sources while at the same time attempting to reduce the ammount of energy we use in our homes/offices and clean up our act.

I was wondering what other people's feelings are with the apparent worshipping of kyoto that I see from many politicians/environmental groups that seem convinced that this is an excellent solution? I mean I have been told before that this is 'at least a start' however in my estimation it's quite an irresponsible/unwise start which is fairly useless...

Anyway please reply with your thoughts.

[Freakshow]

To make a long story short, I think Kyoto is a crock of s***. I explain why here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50284

[bignickel]

Whether or not you believe that humans are causing significant amount of the current global warning, I thought that it was widely known that Kyoto was Step 1 (with more to follow).

With the non-signing of the US, I suspect we`re not going to see Steps 2 to whatever anytime soon.

[Freakshow]

Whether or not you believe that humans are causing significant amount of the current global warning, I thought that it was widely known that Kyoto was Step 1 (with more to follow).

With the non-signing of the US, I suspect we`re not going to see Steps 2 to whatever anytime soon.But I disagree that "Step 1" should exclude some certain nations that it does exclude. Until that is fixed, it is a non-starter for me. And I will vote against any politician that supports it as it is now.

[TheChadd]

Whether or not you believe that humans are causing significant amount of the current global warning, I thought that it was widely known that Kyoto was Step 1 (with more to follow).

Well it's quite an expensive, ineffective 'step 1'. For the same ammount of cost, hows bout we work towards alleviating the problems of hunger, malnutrition, drought, etc... I mean these are problems that are affecting us right now and that will severely exacerbate the problem of global warming.

With the non-signing of the US, I suspect we`re not going to see Steps 2 to whatever anytime soon.

I do not support the US/Australia. It is pointless to reject it unless you're going to actually work to fix the situation in a better way, which as far as I can tell they are not.

[a_unique_person]

Kyoto was supposed to be about setting up a process, a structure and a membership that could make a demonstration of how cutting CO2 emissions could work. Nothing more, nothing less, because, as has been quite clearly demonstrated, even getting that to happen has been impossibly difficult.

If Kyoto had worked, then the structure would have been in place to move on to step 2.

That many portray Kyoto as useless because it does little in actually cutting CO2, while at the same condemning it for even trying to do that, seems to be a case of having your cake and eating it too.

[TheChadd]

Kyoto was supposed to be about setting up a process, a structure and a membership that could make a demonstration of how cutting CO2 emissions could work. Nothing more, nothing less, because, as has been quite clearly demonstrated, even getting that to happen has been impossibly difficult.

If Kyoto had worked, then the structure would have been in place to move on to step 2.

That many portray Kyoto as useless because it does little in actually cutting CO2, while at the same condemning it for even trying to do that, seems to be a case of having your cake and eating it too.
It is not a feasible solution, it is money better spent on other causes.

[Geckko]

I think it widely accepted now that:

1. Kyoto itself will do nothing to reduce CO2 and hence have no effect on climate.

2. Kyoto was not even a decent stepping stone to further effective action.

In effect Kyoto was a complete red herring that has set back the adoption of the types of policies that could be effective. But, hey, it made a lot of people feel warm and fuzzy for a while and provided some extra sport for US bashers.

[Orwell]

I don't give a damn who signs Kyoto or not as long as steps are taken to considerably diminish green house gas production. Unfortunately, I think that without some kind of binding international treaty, emission reductions probably won't happen... Or if it happens, it won't be thanks to our governments, who are basically in the back pockets of those big corporations who don't care about global warming...

[epepke]

Kyoto was supposed to be about setting up a process, a structure and a membership that could make a demonstration of how cutting CO2 emissions could work. Nothing more, nothing less, because, as has been quite clearly demonstrated, even getting that to happen has been impossibly difficult.

If Kyoto had worked, then the structure would have been in place to move on to step 2.

That many portray Kyoto as useless because it does little in actually cutting CO2, while at the same condemning it for even trying to do that, seems to be a case of having your cake and eating it too.

Not really.

Kyoto didn't work. It basically just did not work.

Now, one could say "it would have worked except for that bastard Bush" or "it would have worked if more of the signatories actually did what they promised," but that's faith.

Now, I'm not sure if the Kyoto accords were designed this way in order to provide meat for a neener-neener-boo-boo game, or whether it was mere stupidity, but the fact is that it didn't work.

Nor can I imagine anyone thinking that it would work. You don't reduce emissions by asking countries agree to spend money to reduce emissions. You do it by getting countries to agree to implement more public transportation, or build more nuclear power plants.

[dsm]

Questions:

1. Is it accepted that *something* needs to be done about global warming?
2. Does the Bush Administration agree that *something* needs to be done?
3. What has the Bush Administration proposed since abandoning Kyoto?
4. Are the proposals, if any, viewed as significant?

[a_unique_person]

I think it widely accepted now that:

1. Kyoto itself will do nothing to reduce CO2 and hence have no effect on climate.

2. Kyoto was not even a decent stepping stone to further effective action.

In effect Kyoto was a complete red herring that has set back the adoption of the types of policies that could be effective. But, hey, it made a lot of people feel warm and fuzzy for a while and provided some extra sport for US bashers.

Kyoto would have reduced CO2. The initial targets were relatively modest.
Why was Kyoto not even a decent stepping stone? It was modelled on the successful process used for CFC reduction.

[Freakshow]

Kyoto would have reduced CO2. The initial targets were relatively modest.
Why was Kyoto not even a decent stepping stone? It was modelled on the successful process used for CFC reduction.When the CFC reduction effort was done, was there as much economic competition between the US and India and China as there is now?

Whether you want to accept it or not, it is a VERY relevant question.

[TheChadd]

The initial targets were relatively modest.

And most countries will not meet even these targets.

Why was Kyoto not even a decent stepping stone? It was modelled on the successful process used for CFC reduction.

Stopping global warming following the way the kyoto was leading... is not economically viable, in fact no way is - it is simply too expensive. (Copenhagen consensus). The best way is to ride out global warming by providing better infrastructure for the people who will be hurt by it the most, while still developing/implimenting better energy programs...

[a_unique_person]

And most countries will not meet even these targets.


So, is that the fault of Kyoto, or the will of the countries involved? If there is no actual will to meet Kyoto obligations, then it won't happen.



Stopping global warming following the way the kyoto was leading... is not economically viable, in fact no way is - it is simply too expensive. (Copenhagen consensus). The best way is to ride out global warming by providing better infrastructure for the people who will be hurt by it the most, while still developing/implimenting better energy programs...
The cost of riding it out? There recent news from London is that the danger of Greenlands icecap melting is quite real, and that a 'runaway' condition could happen.

The rise of seven metres will severly affect most of the major cities in the world, ports, infrastructure, etc, will be useless.

What you appear to be asking for is an exercise in 'cost shifting', we won't pay for it now, because we don't want to, but they will, because they will have no choice.

"They" will be my children and their children.

As to it being economically viable, perhaps we should start by making all the current CO2 consuming products pay their own way, rather than subsidising them. The alternatives would then be much more viable.

[TheChadd]

No... it's more that we cannot pay for it now - we can't. As for your 'rise of seven metres' I would be really interested in this study as it is quite a dramatic scenario that I have never heard of... except for a few whackball websites.

The cost is managable if you have adequate infrastructure in place... irrigation, water supply etc etc.. The countries which will be worst effected are those whom already are suffering because they don't have such infrastructure.

As to it being economically viable, perhaps we should start by making all the current CO2 consuming products pay their own way, rather than subsidising them. The alternatives would then be much more viable.

It would be a good start, however even then a kyoto-esque solution of merely cutting emitions is far too expensive for the world to accept.

[a_unique_person]

I get wary of predictions that we cannot bear the cost of Kyoto.

If I had said three years ago that we could pay for Kyoto by doubling the price of fuel, ( I think it would easily cost less than that), there would have been uproar.

Fuel has doubled (more or less) and the economy is ticking along quite nicely.

[Freakshow]

I get wary of predictions that we cannot bear the cost of Kyoto.

If I had said three years ago that we could pay for Kyoto by doubling the price of fuel, ( I think it would easily cost less than that), there would have been uproar.

Fuel has doubled (more or less) and the economy is ticking along quite nicely.No, I am not paying double what I was for gasoline 3 years ago. Not even close. Where did you get such a figure?

[a_unique_person]

(More or less) I am talking about rough figures, off the top of my head.

[Freakshow]

(More or less) I am talking about rough figures, off the top of my head.Its not even close to "double" when talking "rough figures", either.

[a_unique_person]

I have done some engineering. It's the idea that whatever amount it has gone up, (no one would agree it is small), if it was said that we needed to spend that much on Kyoto, the economists would have had a fit. (or for that matter, tax). It has gone up by a huge amount (1.5, 1.7, 1.8? ), and the economy has not died.

[Geckko]

Kyoto would have reduced CO2. The initial targets were relatively modest.
Why was Kyoto not even a decent stepping stone? It was modelled on the successful process used for CFC reduction.

Why is Kyoto different?

1. The costs. The relative cost of switching from CFCs to altenatives is miniscule compared with the cost of switching from carbon to alternative energy sources.

2. The relative importance of energy. We are so much more dependent on energy than CFCs. Energy is the source of everything we have (from modern medicine toevery mundane daily covenience we all take for granted.

3. Kyoto was a diplomatic game. Unlike CFCs, Kyoto was a plan to ration carbon use across the world (we can do without CFCs, but not without carbon sourced energy just yet). So, countries play each other off to do better than others. The EU played a brilliant game by pooling their committments - nobody else was allowed to play that game. Kyoto set targets relative to 1990 emissions. But the treaty wasn't finalised until the end of the decade. So, as a nice cozy club the EU already new by the late 1990s when Kyoto was settled. that structural change in countries like the UK and Eastern Germany had "banked" them major reductions already which then allowed many coutries to have targetted increases. I know Australia for one wsn't allowed to "team off" with a suitable partner to play that game.

4. Kyoto dealt with altering processes at the point of production, while the ban on CFCs was enforcable at the point of consumption. So that meant all Kyoto, or son of Kyoto will do is shift energy intensive production and hence carbon emissions to countries not included under the treaty such as China. Then the products get shipped to Germany, France, US or wherever - and these countries can say they have reduced emissions. Same emissions (maybe more if China is less efficient in energy use), just being pumped from a different place on the planet.

I suppose they are four reasons why I think Kyoto has done more damage than good. We need something a lot more sensible (but it may no be as "cuddly") to reduce emissions.

[TheChadd]

I get wary of predictions that we cannot bear the cost of Kyoto.

Oh we can bare the cost of kyoto but we cannot bare the cost of stopping global warming.

I suppose they are four reasons why I think Kyoto has done more damage than good. We need something a lot more sensible (but it may no be as "cuddly") to reduce emissions.

Agree Whole-heartedly. I don't think the solution is one we will like, but at the same time I think kyoto was a waste of our time.

[Freakshow]

I have done some engineering. It's the idea that whatever amount it has gone up, (no one would agree it is small), if it was said that we needed to spend that much on Kyoto, the economists would have had a fit. (or for that matter, tax). It has gone up by a huge amount (1.5, 1.7, 1.8? ), and the economy has not died.But has the economy been impacted? What would the economy be doing if there was little gas price increase? Are you arguing that gas prices have zero effect on the economy?

And what you want is for further gas price increases on top of the increases we already have. Do you think that the state and federal governments are going to give up their gas tax increases, so that you can add a $1.70 "Kyoto tax" on gas?

And where exactly have you worked out that Kyoto could be paid for in this way? Just for the US? Or all countries? Show your work, please.

[Geckko]

I get wary of predictions that we cannot bear the cost of Kyoto.

If I had said three years ago that we could pay for Kyoto by doubling the price of fuel, ( I think it would easily cost less than that), there would have been uproar.

Fuel has doubled (more or less) and the economy is ticking along quite nicely.

A couple of things.

An increase in the price of oil is not the same as what Kyoto is trying to do. An oil price shifts income from oil consumers to oil producers.

Kyoto directs that oil not be used and less efficient alternatives used instead, or less energy be used. That reduces incomes to all. So I don't think you logic holds together.

Second, there is a self evident truth here that shows oil prices have not increased anywhere close to point at which energy use is being reduced to Kyoto targets. I would say that simple observable facts prove that a doubling in the price of oil is nowhere near enough to discourage oil use to the extent that it will produce Kyoto consistent outcomes (which I think is what you meant to say - rather than "pay for" Kyoto). If that was the case, Kyoto would now be irrelevant because the market would be taking all countires (even non signatories) naturally to Kyoto targets. However, we know that that is a long way from the truth.

[a_unique_person]

Oh we can bare the cost of kyoto but we cannot bare the cost of stopping global warming.

We must.

[Freakshow]

We must.Fine. Come back when you have a treaty that doesn't exclude India and China for a while.

[CapelDodger]

To my mind, Kyoto has gone down the same path as the League of Nations and the UN. So many compromises have to be made to get anything agreed that the promoters can only justify the end-product as a step in a process, but some won't give it up as a bad job. That's very human. What results is a target that opponents of the concept can attack as vaccuous, obfuscating the real problems, such as regular warfare, global warming, teenage promiscuity, substance abuse and all the other intractables.

The next stage of the Kyoto "process" is mired in crap about the first stage. The problem itself is becoming so pressing - governments aren't good with decadal effects, but governments are composed of parents and grandparents, who consider such things - that some entirely non-Kyoto action is being taken, and far more is being urgently :) evaluated.

[Geckko]

Maybe it would be instructive if each of us thought about what the implications would be if we reduced our total energy consumption by, say 30%?

That means a lot more than driving less. There are carbon emissions hidden in everything we do (even when we walk instead of drive!).
I for one think it is pretty scary.

[a_unique_person]

Driving less? The collective insanity rush hour never ceases to amaze me.

[Freakshow]

Driving less? The collective insanity rush hour never ceases to amaze me.Nah. I enjoy driving, actually. I'll drive sometimes even when I have nowhere to go.
http://www.mitsubishimotors.com/eclipse/

ETA: The point being, nothing is going to get me to drive less. I drive not just because I have to, but because I LIKE to. If you want me to burn less fuel, get me a hybrid that puts out at least 263 HP, in a car as light as my Eclipse. I like speed. It gets me high. Speed and acceleration and fast cornering are significant sources of pleasure in my life. I will not drive less.

[CapelDodger]

Fine. Come back when you have a treaty that doesn't exclude India and China for a while.This is the sort of response that Kyoto is wide open to. The increased CO2 load of the last two centuries has been overwhelmingly contributed by Western industry, which is the very thing that has created Western prosperity. It wasn't just democracy. Applying fossil-energy to production had a dominant role. Trust me, I've read up on it :cool: . That very prosperity creates energy-hungry devices and habits that explain the average 'Murrican venting as much CO2 as 20/50/billions, I dunno, Indians or Chinese. Who don't yet got even the average 'Murrican appliances of the 60's. But they - the Oriental majority - have to abjure something if an 'Murrican has to turn a few appliances off stand-by, just to keep the children fed. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair. Frankly, I ain't convinced.

It's like telling kids they can't grow up because Mom and Dad have filled the cesspit, and it can't take enough to see them out unless everybody pitches in.

If the original Kyoto had been left for ten years or so, things would have been very different. The motto being, if you can't get in place what you know is sufficient to the objective, resign. If the objective mattered in the first place, they'll come crawling.

[peptoabysmal]

Whether or not you believe that humans are causing significant amount of the current global warning, I thought that it was widely known that Kyoto was Step 1 (with more to follow).

With the non-signing of the US, I suspect we`re not going to see Steps 2 to whatever anytime soon.

Step 1) Punish the US by taking more money from them than anyone else... after all, they alone affected the climate of a several billion year old planet within a few hundred years.

Step 2) Give the money to underprivileged nations so they can buy more AK-47s for population control.

Step 3) Fudge the numbers so that Russia stands to make a huge profit while not having to reduce anything.

Step 4) Totally exempt China and India from any responsibility.

Step 5) Form a committee to determine if more global taxation is needed before we can address the problem.

Step 6) Repeat steps 1-5.

[Art Vandelay]

You have a good point. Even if we grant that the temperature is rising, and we grant that humans are responsible, and we grant that it can be reversed, that comes nowhere near justifying Kyoto. For Kyoto to be justified, we would have to quantify the costs of reducing emissions, and costs of not reducing them, and evaluate which is worse. We are nowhere near that point. Has anyone come up with credible numbers on just what the costs of global warming will be? Or is it just "it looks bad"?

So, is that the fault of Kyoto, or the will of the countries involved? If there is no actual will to meet Kyoto obligations, then it won't happen.If Kyoto doesn't induce nations to meet their obligations, then that's the fault of Kyoto.

What you appear to be asking for is an exercise in 'cost shifting', we won't pay for it now, because we don't want to, but they will, because they will have no choice. You, too are asking for cost shifting.

[a_unique_person]

So that's it then? Time for me to start studying deck chair arranging skills.

[Geckko]

You have a good point. Even if we grant that the temperature is rising, and we grant that humans are responsible, and we grant that it can be reversed, that comes nowhere near justifying Kyoto. For Kyoto to be justified, we would have to quantify the costs of reducing emissions, and costs of not reducing them, and evaluate which is worse. We are nowhere near that point. Has anyone come up with credible numbers on just what the costs of global warming will be? Or is it just "it looks bad"?

If Kyoto doesn't induce nations to meet their obligations, then that's the fault of Kyoto.

You, too are asking for cost shifting.

For me this is the crux of the matter.

It is comparatively easy to assess the costs of the policies, because we have observable (if stylised) facts about how much it takes in terms of energy, raw materials etc. to convert into output and income and the price of all these things. Hence we can look at how our welfare would be effected by have to use less energy, use more costly sources of energy and potentially use less efficient combinations of labour and materials and capital in production.

By comparison, trying to estimate the future costs of climate change is an excrecise in futurology, just as accurate and just as credible. (remember the flying cars and advanced robots we were supposed to have by around 1980?)

I don't know the answer, those just seem to be the problems. And simple rationing and peer pressure just doesn't work (e.g. Kyoto) because everyone wants to get a little bit more in negotiation than everyone else wants to grant them. So we get fudge (becaus of all the horse trading), cheating and totally ineffective outcomes.

[Geckko]

So that's it then? Time for me to start studying deck chair arranging skills.

Get a house boat ;)

[Geckko]

To my mind, Kyoto has gone down the same path as the League of Nations and the UN. So many compromises have to be made to get anything agreed that the promoters can only justify the end-product as a step in a process, but some won't give it up as a bad job. That's very human. What results is a target that opponents of the concept can attack as vaccuous, obfuscating the real problems, such as regular warfare, global warming, teenage promiscuity, substance abuse and all the other intractables.

The next stage of the Kyoto "process" is mired in crap about the first stage. The problem itself is becoming so pressing - governments aren't good with decadal effects, but governments are composed of parents and grandparents, who consider such things - that some entirely non-Kyoto action is being taken, and far more is being urgently :) evaluated.

I think that a number of posters here have given some interesting arguments that support the view that Kyoto was and is fundamentally flawed as an approach.

I find myself leaning towards that view. Hence I think we need to stop wasting time on trying to prop the thing up and get to work on a superior approach - post haste!

[a_unique_person]

Which is what?

[Geckko]

Which is what?

Now if I knew that, wouldn't I be the brainiest person on the planet.

I suppose I reckon incentives for and investment in new technology would be a part.

[Freakshow]

Which is what?To start with: one that doesn't exclude China and India.

[peptoabysmal]

I think that a number of posters here have given some interesting arguments that support the view that Kyoto was and is fundamentally flawed as an approach.

I find myself leaning towards that view. Hence I think we need to stop wasting time on trying to prop the thing up and get to work on a superior approach - post haste!
We could start by pushing for better public transportation solutions. The US is spread out all over heck. Sometimes, when I fly over, I could swear that it is uninhabited. This is why we don't have very good public transportation outside of cities. And inside the cities, who wants to sit next to gang-bangers and winos while you travel to and from work?

One of the main causes is using coal for electricity generation... there has got to be a better way. Even oil is better than coal in regard to CO2 output.

[a_unique_person]

From "The Weather Makers", p232.



"The governments of both the US and Australia say they refuse to ratify Kyoto because of the prohibitive cost. A strong economy, they believe, offers the best insurance against all future shocks, and both are hesitant to do anything that might slow economic growth.

You might think that this would have precipitated a careful analysis of the costs of ratification versus non-ratification. Nothing of the sort has in fact occurred. Instead wildly varying estimates have been produced by an array of special interest groups, and it is these that have informed the debate. Consider the estimates produced by William Lash, for the Center for the Study of American Business. Lash says that ratification would mean a drop in wages growth of 5 to 10 per cent, increased domestic energy costs of 86 per cent, a cut to the average American family income of $2,700, a 25 per cent reduction in the domestic consumption of fossil fuels (the equivalent of stppping all road, rail, air and sea traffic permanently) and increaese in farm production costs of $10-$10 billion.


......

Economist Eban Goostein has undertaken a detailed analysis of past projections of regulatory costs as they relate to a variety of industries. Goodstien demonstrated that in every case, when compared with teh actual costs paid, the estimates were grossly inflated.

....

This inflation of estimated costs holds regardless of whether the industry itself or an independent assessor did the work, which suggests a systematic source of error.

Goostein argues the reason for this discrepancy is that economists find it difficult to anticipate the innovative ways in which industry goes about complying with new regulations. in some instances they dump the old processes altogether and adpot new, cost-effective ones, while in others they radically transform the entire business. The projectections, in contratst, assume a business-as-usual approach that must absorb the burden of costs.

....

Experiences such as those documented by Goodstein have prompted other economists ... to argue that the emission decreases required to meet the first round of Kyoto targets will be modest.



So, the costs will not bankrupt the Kyoto members. Many benefits will be generated besides cutting CO2.

[Art Vandelay]

That's quite a leap in logic.

[a_unique_person]

Based on documented evidence.

[BobK]

Since Goodstein is the Executive Director of the Green House Network, I feel more information on his analysis is required.

Economist Eban Goostein has undertaken a detailed analysis of past projections of regulatory costs as they relate to a variety of industries. Goodstien demonstrated that in every case, when compared with teh actual costs paid, the estimates were grossly inflated.
What types of regulatory costs? Which and how many industries? Were they randomly selected or might he have cherry-picked them?

Goostein argues the reason for this discrepancy ...
Did he win the debate and now his argument is accepted as true by all?

Experiences such as those documented by Goodstein have prompted other economists ... to argue that the emission decreases required to meet the first round of Kyoto targets will be modest.
Which other economists and how many?

Based on documented evidence.
Would you kindly provide some please?