Suppose all the most developed nations found a way to meet the goals of Kyoto?

Question

Let's talk about solutions now. The basic goal of Kyoto is to require the most-developed nations to reduce CO2 emissions by 5.2 percent levels by around 2010. This target year is almost upon us and realistically, the Kyoto goals will not be met.

However, let's say a new treaty is signed by these nations and they find some way to meet the goals of the treaty? What would be the tangible positive results that would make it worthwhile for all these countries to comply, when trying to prevent global warming would mean considerable economic hardship for them and much harm for the developing countries?

This is where the rubber meets the road. This is the practical side of this issue. Proponents of man made global warming, this is your opportunity tho shine. What are the measures that should be taken by these countries to prevent further warming and even reduce it in the future. Please, provide clear and concise answers. Let’s provide solutions!

Please, no one liners, patronizing attitudes or stupid suggestions.

Answer 1

1) Supposing all of these countries found some way, as you ask, with considerable economic hardship, to meet the goals of Kyoto by 2012 (as you mention, it will not happen by 2010 or 2012) a new treaty, the science (numbers from the models, admittedly) indicates that the net impact on global temperatures over the next 100 years would be at most an almost undetectable 0.2 F degrees. Global temperatures can change that much from month to month.

The first question in light of these numbers is: Will democratically accountable governments truly subject their constituents to economic pain for a result that is this minuscule? This would be, in anybody’s view, an untenable move scientifically, economically and also politically.

The second question in light of these numbers is: Will Americans (with the largest and most successful economy in the world) be willing to sacrifice a percentage of our wealth every year for a non-result?

The third question in light of these numbers is: Will the United States surrender any its sovereignty to an international treaty developed for the most part by bureaucrats for with such small positive results?

The U.S. is criticized for producing about 25 percent of the world’s CO2, and therefore being the biggest part of the “problem”. However, we can see right straight through this claim. Yes, the U.S. is a large emitter of CO2. However, with that CO2, the U.S. produces 31 percent of the things the world wants, and the type of things the world desperately needs that no one else provides: food production, medical advances, technology in all areas, global defense-of-freedom capabilities. These should and must receive recognition, to say the least!

2) Less-developed countries (which are not required to reduce CO2 emissions) would suffer significant harm from the Kyoto Protocol due to loss of world trade and other economic impacts.

3) The Copenhagen Consensus, a panel of eight world-renowned economists (including three Nobel laureate), met in 2004 to discuss and prioritize proposals that address ten of the world’s greatest challenges and advance global welfare. The challenges, identified by the United Nations, included: civil conflicts; climate change; communicable diseases; education; financial stability; governance; hunger and malnutrition; migration; trade reform; and water and sanitation.

In the order of priority, from 1 to 17, diseases, like control of HIV, and malnutrition, ranked 1 and 2. Climate and the Kyoto Protocol ranked 15 -17. Not a very high priority we must say.

4) Greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to increase despite CO2 cuts in developed countries. The reason: Fast-growing countries that do not have to reduce emissions under the Kyoto Protocol—such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil and Indonesia—will account for as much as 85 percent of the projected increase in the next two decades.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE: ADAPTATION IS THE NAME OF THE GAME

Will Cutting CO2 Emissions Reduce the harms to which warming contributes?

The most reasonable thing to do is Focused Adaptation. Focus Adaptation means taking steps now to adapt to warmer conditions such as:

1) Using pesticides to kill malaria-bearing mosquitoes,

2) Improving farming practices and

3) Ending subsidies to coastal development.

These measures could virtually eliminate the threat of coastal flooding and cut in half the number of people projected to be at risk from malaria and hunger.

Adapting to climate change would be better than trying to prevent it. At a cost of less than $10 billion annually, focused adaptation is relatively cheap, compared to trying to stabilize CO2, which would cost trillions of dollars per year.

Finally, the following should also be taken into account:

1) In just 30 years, people in the United States have reduced the energy required to produce one unit of gross domestic product by almost half.

2) Though th world’s population has quadrupled in the past century, the number of food calories available per person has actually increased.

3) Americans grow corn in climates from Alabama to North Dakota.

4) Clever people will develop cheaper ways to create energy with less carbon. Wealthy countries can afford to search for these new sources of energy. One should hope that governments would encourage research into new technologies that, when proven, will be naturally adopted by the marketplace.

5) Limiting carbon-based energy production to levels adopted in the Kyoto Protocol will make an imperceptible difference in global temperatures and an undetectable difference in weather. If achieved, it would reduce the standard of living for millions-and by extension, billions-of people. The poorest are the most vulnerable to such edicts by proponents of such efforts at centralized planning.

6) The next president will have to make major changes in America's energy policies. There is a key problem with continuing our dependency on fossil fuels: our addiction to foreign oil must be decreased. We have been "tithing to terror, "as one scientist put it, by allowing 17% of our oil to come from foreign sources. Changing fuel sources will simultaneously increase national security and help appease the cry of environmentalists.

Answer 2

OK GOOD SO FAR, but you need to do further readings.

CDC----------------------

A concept CDC targets "common but differenciated" calls for different goals for countries according to their level of development.

Remember the China we negociated the Kyoto Protocol with had a GDP ppp per capita of 500 USD !!! It wasn´t the industrial power it is now.

So according to CDC, countries would be separated in three groups:
-> developped (GDP over 20,000 USD): goal to reduce emissions
-> emerging: goal to stabilize emissions while pursuing the development.. strong increase of GDP/emissions
Emission reduction cost would be shared between the worldwide market (developed countries) and the emerging country (e.G. China will now have the economical strength to act... and they do)
- > developing countries: development on a greener scheme through carbon finance.

As soon as a country reaches the next level, it would have to take a stronger committment

INTENSITY TARGET----------SECTORAL TARGETS

Heavy industries can be taken out of the Kyoto Protocol and get an own intensity target assigned.
This can be quantity of CO2 per ton of aluminum, steel or cement.
This is no problem since the technology is largely shared worldwide and the sectors are controlled by a small number of multinational companies which are READY and WILLING to act.
This takes out partly the problem of the burden sharing between countries !
No new plant should be allowed if it is not at the Best Available Technoogy.

Answer 3

The Kyoto Protocol was just meant as a first step in a long-term greenhouse gas reduction, which is why the deadline was set for the short-term (2012, not 2010, by the way).

Your assumption that a ~5% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions would result in "considerable economic hardship for them and much harm for the developing countries" is based on what, exactly?

There are numerous steps to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I suggest reading George Monbiot's 'Heat', in which he details a plan for the reduction of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by the year 2050.

Among them are improving public transportation, building more renewable energy plants, subsidizing green technologies, etc. etc.

Answer 4

"when trying to prevent global warming would mean considerable economic hardship for them and much harm for the developing countries"

I cut and pasted that because it's the crux of the misinformation that people have been brainwashed with. Why do you assume reducing CO2 emmissions will cause economic hardship?

Let's break it down, using some specific strategies and looking at their economic effects:

> widespread implementation of solar enrgy. This is fairly expensive up front, but cost-competative over time. It would create new businesses and new jobs. With financial incentives, the up-front cost to consumers would be cushioned, and in the long run, they will save money--which will then be avialable for spending elsewhere, also helping the economy

>requiring a more or less complet swtch to compact flourescents by 2020. This saves consumers money (with the ripple effect economic benefits)--and isn't a small item; it's the equivalent of 50-75 coal powerplants in energy savings.

>Increasing fuel efficiency inn cars, compined with expanded mass transit. The current proposal (going from an average of 17 mpg to 34 mpg over 10 years is well within current technology ) would not increas car prices on average-there's no need to retool auto assembly plants for this kind of change. Since the rules would apply to all cars, domestic automakers would not e at a disadvantage. AND--cutting gasoline costs by half for the entire American driving public would release massive amounts of spending powr to spur economic growth in other areas.

>In developing ountries, why go to coal or oil? Solar energy systems are already nearly as inexpensive to build--and much cheaper to operate. Systems like that make more sense, with fossil fuel reserved for uses its particularly suited for.

Now--think about all this carefully. Every single thing I mentioned is significant in scale--and would produce reductions in CO2 emissions GREATER (by a wide margin) than called for by Kyoto. And every one would be beneficial to the economies of the nations adopting these and similar strategies. Given the added environmental benefits, there is no sane reason not to follow sch strategies.

So why is it supposedly going to "hurt the economy" and "cause hardships." Look again. There is a loser here--the fossil fuel industry. In other words, the myth of "economic hardship" actually translates to propaganda put out by special interests to protect the status quo. Because there are alternatives to oil and coal--better and more economically effective technologies that they can't compete with ina real competition.

So--"protecting our economic interests" by not "going grreen" is really only protecting the economic welfare of special interests--at our own expense.

Answer 5

The answer to your question is that even after reducing the greenhouse gases, the projected warming would not differ by more than the margin or error. In the Skeptical Environmentalists, there was long and boring discussion of the actual benefits of cutting emissions and it was extremely miniscule, especially when compared with the costs. Some pretend that we can convert to lower CO2 without costs but they are not being realistic. If they are not willing to weigh the costs with the benefits, then it is a difficult to take their recommendations seriously. I personally am all for finding alternative fuel sources or using some tried and true like nuclear, but trying to force them down our throats by a governement bureacracy and mandates will have serious costs associated with them. Our money could be better spent on more serious problems IMO.

Answer 6

suppose developed nations meet goals kyoto

Answer 7

Here's the scary thing: we can't stop it now. The models have long predicted an "overshoot", meaning even after we address we reduce gasses the earth continues to warm for 50 years or so. This is why agreement is so important even while the observed affects so far are fairly mild. (We've had only one Katrina so far.) The only real motivation is for our future generations; if if the models are correct its the developing nations that will be hurt most by warming.

Answer 8

They can today. Power generation accounts for 50% of all green house gases produced in this country.

Switching to nuclear power would cut our ghg's in half, far exceeding Kyoto goals.

The only thing stopping us from using nuclear is that some have an irrational fear of new and modern technology. Instead of advancing society, these technophobes would rather everyone moved back into caves.