Energy Conversion; global warming and the kyoto protocol.?

Question

Energy conversion. Global warming, though not a problem IS urgent or important enough to justify the costs of complying with the Kyoto protocol. HOW?

Answer 1

I'm not sure where you got the assumption global warming is not a problem.

In fact, it carries a number of potential problems recognized by many scientists: rising sea levels that will inundate some of the most heavily populated places on earth, including the coastlines of China and Bangladesh, desertification (such as in the Sahara, specifically Darfur), declining crop yields, extinction of species across their historic ranges (and if they are trapped in those ranges, extinction of species period), massive heat waves like the one that killed tens of thousands in France a few years ago, more intense storms like Katrina, and the possible disruption of the North Atlantic currents which convey warm water from the equator to Europe could potentially bring on an ice age (Europe and Siberia are at the same latitude north. The reason France grows grapes and Siberia grows gulags is that current).

The Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change calculates that the cost to prevent much of global warming - now, when we still have the chance - will be far less than the cost of dealing with it once it has happened and trying to adapt to it. Modern society is adapted to life on earth under the conditions that exist now. A change in those conditions is potentially disastrous. We would be best not to meddle with success.

Answer 2

America and Australia led the World in rejecting the failed Kyoto Protocol which was nothing but a tax on western countries, for being successful!
Energy utilisation / creation / consumption is a measure of the relative wealth of different societies - the protocol would punish the successful, while rewarding the inefficient and jealous countries.
We are way better off out of this stupid agreement.

Answer 3

It depends on how the goals are met. If they are met by just outlawing the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, that will be EXTREMELY damaging to the world economy. It would make the cost of coping with Hurricane Katrina look like pocket change.

But if the limits are met with new technology that makes plenty of energy at a low price without producing green house gasses, that would be good. It would be even better if those new energy sources did not require the use of oil, which is running out.

Answer 4

The Kyoto protocol is a piece of umbrella like legislation which acts as a political driver for other pieces of legislation to be passed by the EU (for example) and they in turn have directives to which national governments have to adhere or face sanctions and / or fines for non-compliance.

Answer 5

I don't know, but have you tried checking wikipedia?