[quote]The Kyoto Protocol exposes participating countries to enormous costs – requiring a collective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 5.2% compared to the 1990 level – in return for dubious, and perhaps negligible, positive results.
According to forecasts by Australian geophysicist Tom M.L. Wigley, even if the greenhouse gas emission ceilings set by the Kyoto Protocol were to be extended after 2012, the temperature in 2100 would be only 0.15˚C lower than without Kyoto. This difference would correspond to a temperature 1.92˚C higher in 2100 than in 1990, a variation that would be reached six years earlier – in 2094 – if nothing were done.
In other words, the Kyoto Protocol
may
merely delay global warming by six years. Is such a negligible result a price worth paying for increased prices and reduced production, both in the developed and developing countries ? The debate on global warming should not be considered over. Perhaps it has not even started. Certainly we need to examine much more carefully and soberly the danger that confronts us and how best to deal with it.[/quote]
I hope that the large sized font will ensure that any interested posters don´t miss this statement.
Also, I am SO HAPPY that we have now set a precedent where posters will be required to provide evidence and post links to the same. About time. Good job Big John! Kudos for the move to make the discussions on these fora better! :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
Already provided. Now, I will look forward to your plan, how much it will cost and what solutions and results your plan will guarantee. Again, if EVEN the Kyoto Treaty will only stave off global warming by six years during the next 100… wow… we are going to have to see some pretty amazing new developments to see how the cost of implementing all these climate change measures is going to work. But you have all that handy, I´ll bet, right?
Already provided. Now, I will look forward to your plan, how much it will cost and what solutions and results your plan will guarantee. Again, if EVEN the Kyoto Treaty will only stave off global warming by six years during the next 100… wow… we are going to have to see some pretty amazing new developments to see how the cost of implementing all these climate change measures is going to work. But you have all that handy, I´ll bet, right?[/quote]
Just checked out that link. You’ll have to do a lot better than come up with one Australian geophysicist to make a claim like that.
Gosh. What a surprise. So when you supply your evidence answering my questions, I will go and get another and another and another link. But I think that you need to get around to providing some evidence first. Fair?
Gosh. What a surprise. So when you supply your evidence answering my questions, I will go and get another and another and another link. But I think that you need to get around to providing some evidence first. Fair?[/quote]
Let’s deal with this question first. If we can have a polite and productive exchange on this point, then we can move to the next point, where I will provide you with some substantive material. Send me some links that show your thesis: That Kyoto supporters believe that the accord will only delay GW by six years in a best case scenario.
[quote]Let’s deal with this question first. If we can have a polite and productive exchange on this point, then we can move to the next point, where I will provide you with some substantive material. Send me some links that show your thesis: That Kyoto supporters believe that the accord will only delay GW by six years in a best case scenario.
I will check back later.[/quote]
NO, You provide some evidence for a change. When you do, I will respond. It is YOUR turn. I would not want to dominate this forum. So let´s have your evidence.
Looks to me like that graph indicates that the difference between carrying on as usual and implementing KP is minute over the period from 1990 to 2100. But, I can’t tell because the idiots who produced this graph apparently only have 5 different color crayons and they are all sorta purpley same same, at least to my old eyes.
The chart (on page 2) also seems to show a very small change in warming/temperature from 2000 to 2050 with and without Kyoto… The difference in temperature appears to be quite small.
Tigerman has the right idea, there are different scenarios, of course the worse scenarios seem to be omitted where 4 degree rises are projected. This is from the IPCC different scenarios.
The shading around the blue line for example show further uncertainty related to additional forcings. Although, seems to me the conference was pretty much a waste of time, some 2 page conclusion after a week of talks with over a hundred countries, and all they agreed to (although not really for those who just want to delay) is lets talk again in a few years time.
There is no appetite for a binding agreement in the US, although they hide behind all major countries must be included. China and India want to be exempt from cutting CO2 levels and Canada wants to make use of its own oil reserves with fracking, so no wonder they are out of the agreement. Small islands want their money to mitigate any projected impact, but being politicians will probably use 99% of the money to buy themselves nice properties elsewhere and now according to Freds earlier article (not even on the Wiki scale of being trustworthy I know) Saudi Arabia and the gulf states want compensation for loss of oil revenue.
Europe seemed to be united in the talks, although from I am reading about Europe’s finances, seems quite likely Europe will melt down before this time next year.
Can I ask how they limit the uncertainty to only the unshaded areas? Seems to me that there is a lot of uncertainty even about the definites.
This is my assessment as well.
Is there a difference WHY there is no appetite in the US? The US gets beaten up by all and sundry for being evil and selfish and unconcerned. What if the US has looked at the available evidence and we have decided that a. the proof is not there or even worse that b. the cost of actions is too high and not worth the effort and worst of all c. that any effort to waste trillions will not lead to any appreciable result?
It is like the UK criticizing and staying away from the Euro. It was treated as a traitor by all and sundry because it went against the accepted wisdom which was not very wise really by pointing out all the potential flaws and how the euro would not work. But it had the audacity to go against what made those involved feel good. It was a noble effort. Never mind that it would not work. It was the purpose behind it that mattered. Now we find ourselves in euro hell. Why then is it so difficult so unacceptable for those who have bought the global warming threat hook line and sinker to understand that those of us who disagree with their stance have thought long and hard about this (more so than many of the believers) and we simply do not see how the proposed plan will work. I have asked and asked and asked and asked for anyone to supply evidence of a plan and how it will deliver… nothing so far… after years of asking… No one can show me a plan that will deliver x in benefit and y cost.
But what if more development as we have seen in the developed world leads to countries having more money to spend on the environment. Wouldn´t that also be a possible solution and just because it involves more development does not necessarily mean that it will not lead to the same goal which is more environmental protection. This is EXACTLY what we have seen when countries develop. The environment improves.
sad but true unless someone can show me how the money will be spent and how these countries have the capacity to absorb and effectively use hundreds of millions of dollars.
and why not? If everyone is out for themselves why not the oil-producing countries too? If everyone wants to belly up to the trough to get their free money (sorta kinda like the OWS movement eh?) then why not these countries? This really started out being another social justice redistributive economics effort like all the other failed efforts of the past including communism, third worldism, aidism and now everyone is asking for the free money not just the ¨right¨countries in AFrica, and the Pacific who ¨deserve¨our help for being poor and oppressed.
Let´s hope that it does not melt down but one thing is for sure Europe will not have the money to fund these generous feel good efforts in AFrica, the Caribbean and the Pacific. Those cash-tossing days are OVER.
So after years and years of discussion on this… do the Fred Smiths of this forum get any credit whatsoever for having foreseen these very conditions? Is this the time to say I told you so?
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Let’s deal with this question first. If we can have a polite and productive exchange on this point, then we can move to the next point, where I will provide you with some substantive material. Send me some links that show your thesis: That Kyoto supporters believe that the accord will only delay GW by six years in a best case scenario.
I will check back later.[/quote]
NO, You provide some evidence for a change. When you do, I will respond. It is YOUR turn. I would not want to dominate this forum. So let´s have your evidence.[/quote]
If you cannot provide REAL evidence to support a claim, how are you in any position to demand anything? I asked for a link to prove your statement, you sent me an inadequate one. That guy is supposed to represent Kyoto supporters? How so exactly?
[quote]Canada quits Kyoto climate protocol
Environment minister says global accord intended to tackle global warming “does not represent a way forward for Canada”.
Canada will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the country’s minister of the environment has said, making it the first nation to pull out of the global treaty.
Canada has said it backs a new global deal to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, but insists it has to cover all nations, including China and India, which are not bound by Kyoto’s current targets.
The decision to quit will not help the international reputation of the North American country, a major energy producer which critics say is becoming a climate renegade.[/quote]
Kinds gives new meaning to the phrase…“Oh…Canada?”
Why do you think the US Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying Kyoto in 1997? Clinton was POTUS and Algore was VP. I don’t think all 95 senators were “deniers”.
added:
Story @ Kyoto – in the past for Canada
[i]" The cost of meeting Canada’s obligations under Kyoto would be $13.6 billion, Kent said.
“That’s $1,600 from every Canadian family — that’s the Kyoto cost to Canadians, that was the legacy of an incompetent liberal government,” the Conservative minister said."[/i]
Why do you think the US Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying Kyoto in 1997? Clinton was POTUS and Algore was VP. I don’t think all 95 senators were “deniers”.[/quote]
Well, that’s a valid point. But I am not supporting Kyoto here, or even saying that Fred was wrong. I was merely saying that it was an assertion that required a link, and then that the link that he provided seemed inadequate.
Are you saying that Wigley represents the pro-Kyoto forces in some substantial way? Like officially, or he is someone with stature in the community that has been accepted as a leader by a wide constituency of pro-Kyoto governments and organizations?
The cost issue is very relevant, of course. I certainly don’t have a plan, not being an international statesman or economics expert. I feel that it is a valid topic of debate, and welcome learning more.
The decision to quit will not help the international reputation of the North American country, a major energy producer which critics say is becoming a [color=#FF0000]climate renegade[/color].[/quote]
Kinds gives new meaning to the phrase…“Oh…Canada?”[/quote]
[quote=“BigJohn”]Are you saying that Wigley represents the pro-Kyoto forces in some substantial way? Like officially, or he is someone with stature in the community that has been accepted as a leader by a wide constituency of pro-Kyoto governments and organizations?
The cost issue is very relevant, of course. I certainly don’t have a plan, not being an international statesman or economics expert. I feel that it is a valid topic of debate, and welcome learning more.[/quote]
I don’t know that it matters all that much whether Wigley was pro or con on the problem that Kyoto purported to deal with. The problem with Kyoto, as agreed by a considerable number of people, is that it would be ineffective at an enormous cost.
I don’t know for sure, but, my impression has always been that Wigley is not a so-called denier.
You blathered on from there for a good half page or so ascribing to me a bunch of thoughts that I wouldn’t have had about this or that (who cares what?) and by the end of it seemed to imply that I might even have some sympathy for the kyoto protocol. It doesn’t even matter actually whether or not, upon closer examination, it is found that you actually implied that. It is the kind of thing that you would imply. Do a search. My name is bob and the subject is “kyoto protocol.” My guess is that you have implied that in the past at least half a dozen times.
This year I have just a few questions about the kyoto protocol. They are: “How much carbon dioxide was produced flying 25,000 people to Durban?” “How much did it cost?” and “How many solar plants could they have built instead?” Oh, and one more “Why in fuck didn’t anybody even seem to mention the one thing that would actually work?” Can you guess what it would have been? That’s* right, a carbon tax. They didn’t go with the idea of insisting that a carbon tax was going to be a pre-requisite for memebership in trade orgainizations so they shouldn’t have bothered going. At this point what should have been being discussed and negotiated was the amount of tax to be levied upon “every” country. That and the mechanisms for oversight concerning how the money is spent.
And no, it would not be even remotely possible that anyone could draw up a proposal detailing how much it would cost or what the exact benefits would be. Your insistance on that is disengenuious and you know it. What we know is that CO2 causes global warming, and that the earth is warming up. We know that the warmer it gets the more that water evaporates and the more it rains.
bit of a rising tone there on “that,” as if to imply impatience, such as you might feel trying to teach a moron something… (Apologies to all morons in the audience.)
Anyway, it’s raining, a lot. I have already run through my head all of the grievances you will have with the list below so don’t bother, please, saying anything unoriginal.
(Oh, the volume is adjusted differently on each video so be prepared to man the volume control or you will be blasted out of your chair one video and left sitting in the silence the next.)
My understanding is that 20% or 30% of the country has been affected by floods and a good percentage of it will remain under water for at least another month.
You have my source. You have Tigerman´s source. Both show that Kyoto will have a minimal effect on climate change. And here you have more from the National Public Radio (NPR) which is known to all far and wide for its conservative global warming denial.
[quote]As diplomats from around the world gather in Durban, South Africa, for talks about climate change, a big question looms: What will become of the Kyoto climate treaty, which was negotiated with much fanfare in 1997. The treaty was supposed to be a first step toward much more ambitious actions on climate change, but it is now on the brink of fading into irrelevance. That could have major implications for the future of United Nations climate talks.
[color=#FF4040]
Even under the best of circumstances, the Kyoto protocol would have made a barely measurable dent in the amount of greenhouse gases flowing into the Earth’s atmosphere. [/color]
We have very little space left in our atmosphere to be continuing to pollute before we cross certain thresholds where impacts will be inevitable.
Jennifer Morgan, director, Climate and Energy Program, World Resources Institute
First, the United States decided not to ratify the treaty, so our emissions aren’t covered by the pact. Then China leapfrogged the U.S. to become the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. But China is treated like a developing country under the Kyoto treaty, which means it has no obligations. Even so, Europe and a few other nations have been soldiering on.[/quote]
[quote]Gupta et al. (2007) assessed the literature on climate change policy. They found that no authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these agreements had, or will, succeed in solving the climate problem.[
11] In these assessments, it was assumed that the UNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. The Framework Convention and its Protocol include provisions for future policy actions to be taken.
World Bank (2010, p. 233) commented on how the Kyoto Protocol had only had a slight effect on curbing global emissions growth
.[20] The treaty was negotiated in 1997, but by 2005, energy-related emissions had grown 24%. World Bank (2010) also stated that the treaty had provided only limited financial support to developing countries to assist them in reducing their emissions and adapting to climate change.
Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based on the idea of climate justice (Liverman, 2008, p. 14).[34] This has particularly centred on the balance between the low emissions and high vulnerability of the developing world to climate change, compared to high emissions in the developed world.
Some environmentalists have supported the Kyoto Protocol because it is " the only game in town," and possibly because they expect that future emission reduction commitments may demand more stringent emission reductions
(Aldy et al…, 2003, p. 9).[35] In 2001, sixteen national science academies[45] stated that ratification of the Protocol represented a “small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.”[46] Some environmentalists and scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).[47]
In May 2010 the Hartwell Paper was published by the London School of Economics. The authors argued that after what they regard as the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Kyoto Protocol "has failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years
" and that this failure opened an opportunity for a re-orientation towards a climate policy based on human dignity instead of human sinfulness.[52][53][/quote]
So why don´t you get busy for a change and go find something that supports any plan of any kind at all and show how this plan in your view would be feasible. You want to learn more do you? Well, when those you instinctively disagree with provide evidence to support their positions you keep rejecting them out of hand and stating that they are not credible BUT you never provide any links of any kind to show why they are not credible NOR do you provide anything to buttress your case. Am I mischaracterizing your approach to posting and discussion in this forum? Or would you like to correct me by pointing to all the links and evidence that you have provided? Up to you… I will be waiting… as I have since the very beginning of this discussion.
So would you say that my comments and my stance are beneath your contempt? Is that how you would like to phrase it? or is that the interpretation of your view that I am a moron and even worse a moron than the vast majority so that you would need to apologize to all other morons in the audience? and who would those morons be exactly?
Gosh Bob. Lots of rain. I think that your obsession with the same is cute but since the earth is going to be destroyed (according to the Mayan calendar) in 2012, so what? All your worries will be for naught when Mother Earth, the Earth Mother, Gaia gets her revenge so stop worrying… be happy… light a candle… plug in something electric… drive a fossil-fuel, er, fueled vehicle. Have a nice day.
