This is a good day for the planet, which has had mostly bad days lately. Still, even with US (and FWIW, Australian) participation, Kyoto would only have been a first step towards tackling global warming. As it is, we have a first step towards a first step.
80 thoughts on “Kyoto comes into effect”
Comments are closed.
John Quiggin 
Hi – I’ve never really been convinced by what the Kyoto Protocol is actually meant to deliver.
Apart from the Carbon Emissions Trading system (which by the way already exists on the Chicago based derivatives trading exchanges), and the huge financial compliance costs imposed on industry, the benefits will ultimately flow back to first world countries in that our mass polluting smoke-stack industries will migrate on mass to third world countries which need the foreign investment, need the capital, need the mass factories to employ the population (children and adult alike), with the trade off that the ‘smoke-stackers’ can polute at will as the lack of stern environmental controls and compliance will be strategically missing.
The thesis of a capital flight to pollution havens because of environmental regulation has been investigated and empirically debunked – at least in relation to US industry – by US environmental economist Eban Goodstein in his 1999 book The Trade-Off Myth. Here is how I summarised Goodstein’s findings in my Doctoral thesis:
“Goodstein found that there were few examples of relocation of US plants to pollution havens. In general an environmentally induced capital flight had not occurred. This was because: the cost of environmental regulation was small compared to overall business costs (especially wages); costs were only one factor in relocation decisions; modern production technology obviates environmental compliance costs by incorporating pollution control devices to begin with; and environmental compliance could yield benefits outweighing the costs (Goodstein, 1999: 55-67, 171).”
The prospect of such a capital flight is often raised in relation to Australia’s energy-intensive industries such as aluminium, iron and steel. All of Goodstein’s arguments would seem to apply here, especially as existing large smelting plants involve huge sunk costs which the operators will be seeking a return on before making further large capital investments in possible new plants overseas. And if such new plants are established overseas, it is reasonably probable that they will be operating in the context of developing countries being brought into a regime of binding greenhouse emissions control targets under a post-Kyoto agreement pursuant to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. At the very least, investors in these sectors will be factoring such a prospect into their decision-making horizons.
Finally, the deposits of bauxite and iron ore under the surface of the Australian land mass have shown no tendency to move from country to country in response to energy price signals
Of course, our fearless leader is not bold enough to take even a first step towards a first step. This is probably at least partly due to the fact that Chief Monkey Bush has also refused to ratify the protocol, and everyone knows what happens if you don’t do what Chief Monkey Bush does. Big trouble!
We’d be in danger of gaining international credibility!
But didn’t Goodstein base his figures and assumptions on pre-1998 data and international trade frameworks? not on a post Kyoto Protocol world?
Regardless of costs, third world government incentives (tax holidays etc) will be a strong inducement.
Reading the article in the Australian by Alan Wood: Kyoto a pointless exercise
I was struck by the final paragraph:
“Rather than let them alarm you, ask yourself this: do you think people who can’t tell you whether it will rain next Wednesday are really capable of building models that tell you what the climate will be like 100 years from now? I wouldn’t trust any economic modelling that forecast what the world economy would look like a century hence, and climate models are at least as flawed as economists’ ones. ”
The thing is that economists would (and do) predict what the economy will do a long time hence if we drive one factor externally to some relative extreme. Eg. If we were to say steadily keep raising taxes (and say spending on defence)then I’m pretty sure most economists would hazard a guess at what the state of the economy would be after 100 years of this policy.
Some silly comments in Alan Wood’s article in the Oz today: “do you think people who can’t tell you whether it will rain next Wednesday are really capable of building models that tell you what the climate will be like 100 years from now?” Confusing something chaotic such as weather with climate is incredible. Especially as in the previous paragraph he pointed out that unusual weather events don’t confirm forecasts of climate change.
In the SMH, Anthony Albanese is paraphrased as saying “there was no downside to Australia ratifying the protocol given Australia was on track to meeting its pollution reduction targets”. Have we taken any legislative or other steps to achieve this? Would we have to take any over the next 8 years to meet our Kyoto targets?
“But didn’t Goodstein base his figures and assumptions on pre-1998 data and international trade frameworks? not on a post Kyoto Protocol world?”
Yes. However the task of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not different in principle from that of reducing emissions of other pollutants covered by the US environmental protection laws which, according to Goodstein, did not produce a capital flight. Further, whereas those laws were purely national in scope, Kyoto seeks to regulate emissions on a global scale, and the post-Kyoto phase of negotiations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change will aim to produce agreements which include a system of binding emissions targets for developing countries. In other words, the logic of the FCCC, Kyoto and post-Kyoto is about coordinated global action which reduces the scope for individual countries to act as pollution havens.
Paul – regardless, only 35 countries are signatories to Kyoto (I know, I know the US and Australia are not), but it still leaves about 140 plus countries that are not, and many are run by dictatorial, fianncially self-seeking fat cats!!!
Roberto,
there are 141 countries that have either accepted or ratified.
http://www.mct.gov.br/clima/ingles/quioto/signata.htm
Swade – apologies – typo on my part.
Yes, there are 141 countries who have or are to ratify, but they account for only about 55% of greenhouse gas emissions, and then have only PLEDGED to cut these emissions by 5.2% by 2012.
When does the rest of world start applying trade sanctions?
Roberto,
Your initial point was that Kyoto would promote (polluting) capital flight to 3rd World countries (of which there is little evidence in relation to the implentation of pollution abatement policy). However in 10 you seem to have shifted ground to Kyoto’s problem being a lack of coverage and too low a emission reduction??
And BTW comparing points 8 and 10 – that’s one hell of a typo.
CG
1. I made my apologies,
2. My argument still holds
3. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/15/1108230006497.html – See this article about community objections to wind farming. If this is the case in general, then Kyoto – no matter well meaning – is well….you know!
Pablo Caslas famously once said, "The situation is hopeless. We must take the next step." which kind of sums up neatly what I just read on this over on Andrew Bartlett’s Blog. It is possible it is too little to late. It is possible the commitment isn’t broad enough. But a first step taken makes it possible for the next one and the next one. And that’s cause for optimism – even if it’s only a little bit.
John,
There is a lot of uninformed discussion on your blog about Kyoto by others from both sides. It would be good if people read a little more widely before passing definitive comment on this issue.
My new report on Kyoto can be found at the Lowy Institute.
http://www.lowyinstitute.org
Best Wishes
Warwick McKibbin
Roberto is the classic Climate Change-Kyoto ‘sceptic’. Say something that appears to be logical and commonsense, but without any backup, then hope that no one will actually check up on the facts. When someone does pull you up on it, simply state some other un-related half-truth. When some-one says ‘that’s not right either’, simply pull out another half-truth. Roberto doesn’t even try to argue that what he says is correct, he just keeps on making statements.
Oh yeah and occasionally saying ‘My argument still holds’ means nothing when no one can work out which argument you are talking about and you haven’t provided any supporting arguments.
Simon,
I may fall into that bucket as well, but I also do not understand the imporance of the protocol. If we accept for argument’s sake that climate change is a fact and is also caused by human activity then all the protocol is going to do is to slightly reduce the rate of increase in carbon dioxide emissions. The net effect of this on global temperatures is likely to be so close to zero as to disappear into the statistical noise, particularly given the very wide range of error in the models used.
The current warming trend, while it
Oops, bad paste. To finish:
The current warming trend, while is is co-incidental with industrialisation, may not be caused by it. Co-incidence does not prove causation.
So, on the basis of models that are as imperfect as they are and with little to no direct evidence, we are being told to reduce everyone’s output potential for an immaterial reduction in something that may not be a problem when there are several other more pressing needs in the world that have better, and more provable benefits. Just seems silly to me.
Andrew, the principles of the greenhouse effect and the contribution of various gases is well known and is part of any first year chemistry. Without greenhouse gases the earth would be very cold (similar to Mars). Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases increases the greenhouse effect and therefore we get warmer (ie Venus, avg temp 457C, due to the huge amount of greenhouse gases in it’s atmosphere). There isn’t any ‘co-incidence’ about it. Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the average temperature.
There isn’t any ‘co-incidence’ about it. Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the average temperature.
By how much? Is it a linear or non-linear relationship? If the latter, of what kind? What are the standard errors of the predictions of the model(s)? Again, association does not prove causality and even if there is causality what would be the net effect?
Large up front costs do not guarantee any sizable reduction of warming. I would rather prefer to see the cost of the Kyoto exercise to more worthwhile causes. For example, John’s post-tsunami appeal.
Very little of the commentary on global warming, Kyoto etc seems to have the problem in perspective. This article – http://www.austhink.org/monk/Abrupt%20Climate.htm –
does that, by taking a whole of Earth’s history perspective, then gradually focusing more and more closely on more recent time frames.
It also points out that, as far as the immediate concern of man-induced climate change is concerned, it may already be too late. The warming already in place may be enough to trigger a Dansgaard-Oeschger event, probably leading to the next ice age (in the Northern Hemisphere).) Nevertheless,taking the long term view, this is simply a matter of timing. The D-O Cycle would lead to the next ice age, probably in the relatively near future, without any human intervention. IMHO we would be better off planning how to deal with the next ice age when it does come than fussing about changes that have only a minuscule impact on anthropogenic global warming.
Simon
Yes I am sceptical. And remain so. And your contribution doesn’t enlighten the issue. As to your comments about my contribution, well!
You say in 19 that “…principles of the greenhouse effect and the contribution of various gases is well known “. I thought that the fact that people are arguing about this is proof that the ‘effects’ are not well known or more importantly ‘agreed’! Check out Dr Jennifer Marohasy’s article at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3034
Also please note Doctor K’s contribution in 20.
Hmm another opportunity for my favorite topic of confirmation bias : )
Roberto Interesting that you refer to Dr Jennifer Marohasy’s basically she contradicts all the local environmental scientists, CSIRO etc that say that the Murray river is pretty sick and defends Lomborg when he says that the global environment is Ok.
Again is this a case like in the 1920’s with eugenics that she is right and whole scientific disciplines have a bad case of institutional bias or is she -given she contradicts a whole swath of mainstream respected science and scientists- the one with a bad case of confirmation bias?
I tend to give skeptics like her little credence because they tend to dismiss any claim that humans have adversely affected the environment. If they had any credibility that would at least acknowledge some of the problems like dry land salinity in Australia or other problems worldwide. But no, they are all denied or brushed under the carpet
You have to laugh though that within the same week Michael Duffy has her on Counterpoint while Phillip Adams has those self same Murray River scientists on Lateline. Would have been far more interesting to have them all on the same show for a debate.
The comment by B.S. Fairman (When does the rest of world start applying trade sanctions) deserves consideration. I am normally a free trader (as a credential i guess i am on the most wanted list of the french ministry of agriculture), but in the case of Kyoto it is different. True, the pollution haven thing has been largely debunked, but Kyoto takes it into another dimension. Serious work by the oecd shows that the ciment and steel industry in Kyoto countries will suffer from competition with non Kyoto countries. It seems to me that if you have an environmental agreement that ends up with an expansion of the market share of the polluting industry (non kyoto cement and steel), world pollution increases, and the agreement loses interest. In that case there is a clear contradiction between GATT/WTO rules and environment. My point of view (shared by much better economists than me such as R. Guesnerie) is that Kyoto countries need to implement a border tax based on some sort of carbon content. This may be GATT incompatible (although i am curious to see what the Appelate body of the WTO would say about Article XX of GATT on commercial measures for the protection of global resources), but the EU needs to think seriously about it. I hate departing from the usual motto that free trade is good. Most of the environmentalists criticisms of freer trade are rubbish, but in the case of Kyoto, this is totally different.
J Christophe Bureau (French, working in Ireland. By the way, congratulation for the most interesting blog on the web).
The comment by B.S. Fairman (When does the rest of world start applying trade sanctions ?) deserves consideration. I am normally a free trader (as a credential i guess i am on the most wanted list of the french ministry of agriculture), but in the case of Kyoto it is different. True, the pollution haven thing has been largely debunked, but Kyoto takes it into another dimension. Serious work by the oecd shows that the ciment and steel industry in Kyoto countries will suffer from competition with non Kyoto countries. It seems to me that if you have an environmental agreement that ends up with an expansion of the market share of the polluting industry (non kyoto cement and steel), world pollution increases, and the agreement loses interest. In that case there is a clear contradiction between GATT/WTO rules and environment. My point of view is that Kyoto countries need to implement a border tax based on some sort of carbon content. This may be GATT incompatible (although i am curious to see what the Appelate body of the WTO would say about Article XX of GATT on commercial measures for the protection of global resources), but the EU needs to think seriously about it. Most of the environmentalists’ criticisms of freer trade are rubbish, but in the case of Kyoto, this is totally different.
The kyoto agreement-a good start.
Those who argue against climate change as an issue
will be seen by the next generation as criminal scumbags who let the dollar pervert their humanity.
Your children’s children will judge you.
“Those who argue against climate change as an issue will be seen by the next generation as criminal scumbags who let the dollar pervert their humanity. Your children’s children will judge you.”
Your children’s children will view your concern about global warming about like you would view your grandfather leaving you his precious set of 78 rpm records. Your concern will be touching, but absolutely irrelevant to their lives.
The world per-capita GDP in 2100 will probably exceed $1 million (in 1990 dollars):
Third Thoughts on World Economic Growth in the 21st century
If you think the people in 2100 are going to care about the earth being about 1 degree Celsius warmer than it is now, you’re crazy:
Implications of 21st century economic growth
Temperature projections for the 21st century
Just to end my contribution to this thread, have a look at the following:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=379
It reads in part:
“A petition circulated to scientists urging lawmakers to reject the Kyoto Protocol has been signed by over 17,000 individuals including over 2,000 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists. An additional 4,400, according to the petition’s sponsors, are qualified to assess the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life and most of the remaining signers have technical training suitable to understanding climate change issues.”
Not hte Oregon petition, Roberto!
If you’re not aware that this effort (nearly a decade old now) was thoroughly bogus, you really need to get up to speed on the issues.
keep trying Roberto, Dr K and Andrew. We have just had Greenpeace here in SA apparently giving a weather report in 40 years. media didn’t seem to feel that this was a bullshit exercise run to scare.
I enjoyed this comment re the super model of Australian Institute etc (TCS) and the IPCC
The conclusion was that the likelihood that the computer models were correct, with all those adjustable parameters, was zero. Regarding the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claim that models can fit the observed global mean temperatures, Fred Singer referred to a nice quotation from the famous mathematician John von Neumann: ‘With four parameters I can fit an elephant and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.’
Roberto -there is no argument over the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases – without greenhouse gases the earth would be a frozen wasteland. From CSIRO:
“Sunlight passes through the atmosphere, warming the earth’s surface. In turn, the land and oceans release heat, or infrared radiation, into the atmosphere, thus balancing the incoming energy. Water vapour, carbon dioxide and some of the other trace gases absorb part of this radiation, allowing it to warm the lower atmosphere, while the remainder is emitted to space. This absorption of heat, which keeps the surface of our planet warm enough to sustain us, is called the greenhouse effect. Without heat-trapping greenhouse gases the surface would have an average temperature of –18°C rather than our current average of 15°C.”
Fact is if molecules didn’t absorb radiation then you’d never get warm when you sat in front of a heater.
Jennifer Marohasy – who the hell is she? Why don’t you reference to some real science rags and find out what the scientific community really thinks? Like say Chemical and Engineering News, the industry mag published by the American Chemical Society.
January 24, 2005
Volume 83, Number 4
p. 3
Global Climate Change
RUDY M. BAUM
Editor-in-chief
Regular readers of this page know that I firmly believe that overwhelming evidence supports the idea that human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is affecting Earth’s climate. Data and sophisticated models convincingly show that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere have already begun a process of global warming that, if unchecked, will lead to a 2–10 °F increase in the average global temperature by the end of the century. If the increase is toward the upper end of this range, the impact will be catastrophic.
… and on the Global Warming/Climate Change name debate…
C&EN will continue to use the phrase “climate change,� because, although the phenomenon is driven by an increase in the average global temperature, the phenomenon manifests differently in different parts of the Earth.
I’m sorry Doctor K but I can’t answer your questions but I’m sure if you really are interested you can find the various published papers on the subject. Roberto since you refer to Doctor K’s questions, I’m assuming then that you agree that increasing greenhouse gases will led to an increase in average world temperature, and your question is now about by how much?
can any one here explain to me why the argument is only about CO2 and industrialisation/capitalism. We have had massive increases in the amount of methane. Then there is ozone in the troposphere, black carbon soot, aerosols, nitrous oxide, and several types of halocarbons. And isn’t water vapour no one greenhouse gas followed by methane?
Then there is this report and its suggestions. I do not come across this in the media.
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2002) highlights data indicating that greenhouse gas emissions have dropped due to concerted efforts by governments around the world. According to this new study, an “alternate scenario” to understanding climate change might provide guidance for successfully curtailing climate altering factors without requiring unreasonable demands of both industrialized and developing countries.
Some material I read suggests that methane, if the climate change is man made may well be the big culprit.Is it because its about cows rice and garbage?
How can this be a debate to trust when we get Greenpeace pulling stunts and our politicians running with them because it is populist. The overkill bit strikes me as a problem too. Many are starting to hear Peter crying wolf.
sorry alternate scenario was methane. But then we would have to talk about population.
The one other statistic I have not heard mentioned here is that the total human contribution (i.e. that portion we can do anything about) to carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere is about 3% of the natural output. So, as a guess, the difference under Kyoto is that the human contribution will go not from 3 to 3.1%, but to 3.05%. It would have to be an incredibly volatile system for this to have an effect. Kyoto is great politics (the pollies can look like they are doing something, get all worked up etc.) but bad science.
Andrew, this number is way off. Human contributions are expected to double the atmospheric concentration of CO2 sometime this century.
“Jennifer Marohasy – who the hell is she?”
She’s Australia’s answer to Trofim Lysenko.
JQ,
That’s an interesting stat – could you provide the source?
Andrew’s number is not so much “way off” as misunderstood by Andrew.
The important point to understand about the human contribution to the global carbon cycle is that it is creating an imbalance in the cycle, i.e. the additional amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted due to human activity is more than the carbon “sinks” in the biosphere can assimilate. Whilst the excess of emissions over assimilative capacity may only be a small fraction of the throughput of the carbon cycle in a given year, its cumulative effect over 150-200 years has been major and will continue to be so until anthropogenic emissions are reduced to a level consistent with balance in the carbon cycle.
Ros you mustn’t read too carefully – though methane is a ‘better’ greenhouse gas – it’s only produced in small amounts when compared to CO2. In Australia CO2 contributes to around 70% of the total greenhouse warming caused by greenhouse gas releases, while in the UK it’s around 80%.
Ros, I just found the methane piece at Goddards – it’s a nice read. Thanks. Where’s the piece on the drop on greenhouse emissions? Thanks.
“can any one here explain to me why the argument is only about CO2 and industrialisation/capitalism. We have had massive increases in the amount of methane. Then there is ozone in the troposphere, black carbon soot, aerosols, nitrous oxide, and several types of halocarbons.”
Only CO2 is mentioned, because most of the others (e.g., methane, CFCs) aren’t increasing, and some (e.g., nitrous oxide) could never be justified as contributing significantly to global warming.
Percentage contributions to global warming, and concentration trends
Climate forcing rates of greenhouse gases
Basically, CO2 is the only greenhouse gas left that’s significant and clearly rising (the rest aren’t rising, or are insignificant).
In the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the IPCC ludicrously has methane concentrations **increasing dramatically** in the 21st century, even though it was clear when the report was written that methane concentrations were plateauing. It’s one of the reasons that the methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases in the IPCC TAR constitute, in my opinion, the greatest fraud in the history of environmental science.
Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)
Mark they are probably talking about natural methane hydrate deposits on the sea floor and in places like Siberia that when things warm up will be released. I don’t remember which programme had this but on Radio National recently some guy was talking about absolutely enormous carbon sinks in Indonesian peat bogs(which hold a large % of the worlds carbon ) that if they dried out and caught on fire would produce such a gigantic release of carbon it would dwarf all the other sources scientists have been concerned about. I think he said no one has even attempted to factor in this release in current models.
I also happen to recall some scientists taking about past sudden releases of methane hydrates causing mass extinction events, factor in the burning peat bogs and you can forget about human induced CO2 the horse has bolted.
John,
Your question forced me to revisit my sources and I understand (from a quick Google) that there is some question about them, so I withdraw for the moment until or unless I can back it up further.
Nevertheless, I maintain that Kyoto is not going to make a blind bit of difference. I still believe that climate change will not be as bad as projected, but read this. From my reading of this analysis, if this is correct, the only way to start even plateauing the GHG levels would be to cut GHG production by about half, not merely control the growth in some (but by no means all) countries. The reduction of carbon emissions by over half (given current technology, the only real way to do this would be by cutting output by about half as well) would cause nearly incalculable economic and social damage.
So, if we accept this, Kyoto is like standing in front of a tank at full speed and taking comfort that we have a peashooter. The work that is going into controlling emissions would be much better spent either working out coping strategies and/or better ways to trap carbon, not wasting time on trying to reduce the rate of growth, because it is simply not going to help enough to be measurable.
Andrew, that’s what I say in the post. The point of Kyoto is/was
(1) set up necessary mechanisms
(2) Have the developed countries ante up so the rest of the world can be persuaded to join in the next round
The claim about “incalculable economic damage” is as spurious as the worst of environmentalism. The damage is calculable and is of the order of a few per cent of GDP.
The exchange between John and Andrew is another example of the ironic phenomenon observed by Goodstein. This is that in debates on the economic consequences of greenhouse emission reductions, the Right is pessimistic about the capacity of capitalism to adapt and believes that capitalism will be thrown into crisis by restricting the use of a particular resource, whereas the Left is optimistic about the dynamism, flexibility and ingenuity of capitalism and its ability to respond to the resource constraint through technical and organisational innovations and efficiency gains. Needless to say, I’m an optimistic leftie.
Andrew, I don’t think your analogy is correct – Kyoto will help us in slowing the rate of warming – think of it as we are stuck on an train that’s accelerating towards a broken bridge – Kyoto’s going to stop it from accelerating so quickly, giving us more time to work out how to use the brake. The other alternative is to do nothing and for the train to accelerate faster and faster.
Without reducing the rate of growth of emmissions, the rate of climate change will accelerate, the magnitude of change will be greater and the coping strategies and carbon trapping will just become more and more expensive.
I think this one may require a missive.
On the train analogy to start with. Perhaps another way to look at the train is to say that, if you accept the GHG predictions in the linked article the slowing in acceleration that results from Kyoto is the equivalent of one of the passengers sticking their foot out onto the track and slowing the acceleration of the train that way. It may have an effect, but is the damage to the person’s foot worth the change?
John,
You are correct on the damage to the economy from Kyoto, but please re-read. I have not said that the damage from Kyoto would be incalculable – I said the damage that would result from anything likely to have a real effect on the effect would be incalculable – or at least close to it. Anything less, again presuming the analysis is correct, merely gives us all a nice feeling while reducing our wealth. That is a decision for politicians – is the nice feeling worth the few points of GDP? Europe has chosen one way and the USA the other.
On your points one and two. As I have said above, given current technology and accepting the science in the article, I would maintain that the only way to stop or reverse the greenhouse effect would be to halve or more than halve the output of GHGs. So it does not matter how many antes are upped – the effect will continue until carbon emissions decline to less than half of where they are today. The cost of that would be very high. On that basis it would be better to develop coping strategies than to waste time and a few points of GDP imagining that Kyoto is useful. Spend the additional few points of GDP on dealing with the effects.
Paul,
On your philosophical point. Capitalism is excellent at dealing with things that make sense. Government action, and Kyoto is an example, very rarely does so. Where the restriction is the result of a change in demand or supply capitalism adjusts well – most of these changes are slow and pricing signals the changes well in advance. Government action is very rarely sensible and is routinely dramatic. Capitalism does deal with that, but the suddenness of the change induces dislocation, frequently a black market and therefore corruption. All this reduces economic growth potential. The left needs to understand opportunity cost a bit better – almost always the dislocation and disruption causes more damage than the supposed ill that the government action was supposed to correct.
Andrew, I wasn’t referring to the costs of Kyoto, which are an order of magnitude smaller than the estimate I gave, but to the costs of reducing emissions by 50 per cent.
John,
What technology is available to do that? How can, given current technology, we reduce GHG emissions by half?
JQ, you say that the cost of halving greenhouse gas emissions is calculable, and is of the order of a few percent of GDP. I would be interested to know (1) what your source is; (2) has anyone actually done the calculations and (3) if so, what their assumptions were and how sensitive the answer is to these assumptions.