Is Kyoto worth it?

[bascule]

This guy is a right-wing extremist, but damn if I don't love what he's trying to do:

 

http://junkscience.com/

 

When it comes down to it, in terms of the overall shift in the Earth's radiative imbalance CO₂ just doesn't do all that much. And even with an immense international effort (which is trying for what are quickly proving to be unobtainable goals) the predicted outcome is almost negligable.

 

Firstly, the now widely acknowledged "saving" (amount of warming avoided) potential for complete implementation of Kyoto is ~0.07 °C by the year 2050. Since skeptics (e.g. Pat Michaels) and advocates (Kevin Trenberth, for example) alike have signed off on the figure we see no need to dispute it (granted, many have pointed out that the potential "saving" is closer to 0.02 °C but who's quibbling - that's way less than error margin for trying to measure global temperature anyway). Further, even though the US and Australia have sense enough to stay clear of energy rationing schemes like this we are prepared to cut The Protocol a great deal of slack and pretend that figure is achievable by the EU and fellow travelers. Thus our potentially "saved" temperature figure is simply 0.07 °C/45 (the amount per year assuming a linear progression) further divided down to an accumulation per second. Granted, this is not likely a very accurate nor realistic representation but hey, we don't even know the absolute mean surface temperature of the planet within ±0.07 °C anyway.

 

Although Bush's motives for rejecting Kyoto are probably more related to cronyism than science, I consider it a good move. When he claims more research is needed he is telling the honest truth: the problem is not well understood, and won't be until we have reliable multi-decadal planetary climate models. The models are improving all the time, but we're not there yet.

 

There are so many other forcings to consider, including the natural cycle, that the effect of Kyoto is almost negligable. It's a very expensive token gesture to fight a problem about which the alarmism is rampant but the science is still spotty at best.

 

Personally, I think a much sounder approach would be to invest the money going towards Kyoto into climate science research. The alleged $120 billion spent on Kyoto so far would've gone a long way to advance the quality of planetary climate models.

[doG]

An example of the Kyoto Treaty's shortcomings....

 

Trade Imbalance Shifts U.S. Carbon Emissions to China, Boosts Global Total

 

The growth of Chinese imports in the U.S. economy boosted the total emissions of carbon dioxide (a primary greenhouse gas) from the two countries by over 700 million metric tons between 1997 and 2003, according to a study published online in the journal Energy Policy. The analysis, prepared by two scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, suggests that American emissions of carbon dioxide in 2003 would have been 6% higher if the United States had manufactured the products that it imported from China. Meanwhile, China's 2003 emissions would have been 14% lower had it not produced goods for the United States.

 

"These results show the importance of world trade in accounting for the emissions that drive climate change," says Shui Bin, an environmental policy analyst who authored the Energy Policy paper with geochemist Robert Harriss. Their research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s primary sponsor.

 

Moer at NCAR...

 

As the economy continues to globalize more and more manufacturing will move to third world countries. The Kyoto Treaty would actually influence this trend to increase by providing an incentive to move manufacturing jobs from countries inhibited by the treaty in order to reduce cost, a key goal in any manufacturing process.

[Pangloss]

Yup. But sadly special interest groups continue to lament the end of Kyoto.

 

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_national_ce.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PREmissionsCreditsTP1205.html

 

The group linked above was at a UN conference on climate change on Montreal yesterday passing out these rolls of toilet paper printed with Kyoto emmisions credits on them, to make the point that they're not worth the paper they're printed on (unless it's toilet paper). Not because Kyoto was BAD in their view, mind you, but because Kyoto wasn't signed and completed.

 

[Pangloss]

Or did I get that backwards? That may be an anti-Kyoto group. So many groups, so little time. (lol)

 

But if that's the case then the first link shows the normally objective Nyhan to be partisan and ideological on the issue, I suppose. I guess he has a point about it being a publicity stunt, though.

[bascule]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1383206

 

MONTREAL (Reuters) - The European Union and host Canada piled pressure on the United States on Wednesday to join an international pact to curb greenhouse gas emissions and limit the predicted chaos from global warming.

 

But the United States defended its policy of investing billions of dollars in cleaner technology to reduce emissions, brushing aside calls for it to commit to long-term U.N. discussions on slowing climate change,.

 

"One size does not fit all," said Paula Dobriansky, the U.S. under secretary for global affairs, who leads the American delegation to the November28-December9 U.N. climate talks in Montreal.

 

Environment ministers from more than 90 countries met to try to break a deadlock over how to launch talks to entice the United States and big developing nations like India and China to join a system that cuts production of greenhouse gases.

 

"There is absolutely no excuse for any more delay in action," Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin told the meeting, urging the United States and other sceptical nations to "listen to the conscience of the world."

 

The EU also called for more action.

 

Adding a sense of urgency to the talks is extreme weather, including Hurricane Katrina, the world's costliest weather-related disaster, which scientists warn could be a portent of things to come.

 

At the heart of the Montreal meeting is how to cut emissions after 2012, when the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol climate change pact ends. Washington has rejected the pact, saying mandatory emissions cuts would harm its economy.

 

GREEN ANGER

 

The U.S. stance has angered many countries and green groups that back Kyoto, who contend that while the pact was flawed because it excludes developing nations in the 2008-12 first phase, it is still be best mechanism in existence.

 

"We will continue to talk to our American partners and remind them of their commitments," European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told reporters.

 

He said U.S. President George W. Bush agreed at a summit of eight leading industrial nations in July and at a U.N. summit in September to advance global discussions in Montreal on long-term cooperation to curb climate change.

 

Canada has proposed two-year talks looking at ways to involve all countries in tackling climate change. But Dobriansky dismissed the idea, saying Washington does not support anything that leads to formal targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

 

"It is our belief that progress cannot be made through these formalized discussions," she told a news conference.

 

The United States is the source of a quarter of all greenhouse gases produced from burning fossil fuels.

 

Green groups are also angry by the lack of progress.

 

"Climate change is not about bureaucrats scurrying around. It's about people, about families, about children," said Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuit indigenous leader who says a thaw in the Arctic ice is undermining hunting cultures.

 

About 160 members have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which binds about 40 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. Many countries, including Canada, are way above their targets at the moment.

 

Many officials at the conference say formalizing commitments to cut carbon dioxide emissions will mean a huge economic shift, particularly for rapidly growing developing nations, who say cleaning up could limit growth. Rich nations should be taking the lead, developing nations say.

 

Most scientists say a build-up of heat-trapping gases from fossil fuels burned in power plants, factories and cars is warming the planet and could herald catastrophic changes such as a rise in sea levels spurred by melting icecaps.

 

Environmentalists set up a fairground-style test of strength, asking delegates to smash a giant hammer onto a "Kyotometer" to show their commitment to fighting climate change. "I hit it and rang the bell three times out of three," said Chief Gary Harrison, an Arctic indigenous leader.

[silkworm]

Hell yes it is worth it. Every effort should be made to limit air pollution. Money is fictional, we all just made it up, but our health and our life isn't.

 

I don't trust the science of anyone at all who has a political motivation, but if the projected benefit were only 0.000000000000001ºC, it would still be worth it when compared to saving points in this life that we try to degrade to the level of a video game.

 

We seriously need to take action on this. We may be quickly reaching a point of no return. I feel like the whole world is New Orleans and we're just watching Katrina come and staying in town because we think this is just TV and we'll be saved. That's not going to happen.

 

To sum up, every little bit we can do is worth it. Money should not be considered a factor because it is imaginary anyway.

[AL]

Money should not be considered a factor because it is imaginary anyway.

Money is very much a factor, and it is oversimplifying things to ignore the very real opportunity costs involved here. Money we spend removing greenhouse gases from our air is money we will NOT spend on reducing pollution, cleaning our water supply, improving our medicine, providing education, etc. I'm not saying we should ignore global warming, only that we need consider costs (including opportunity) versus benefits before outright declaring all of our money should be thrown at this problem.

 

There are very few environmental disasters I would approve throwing all our money at. An imminent meteor strike for sure, for instance.

[Pangloss]

Say, does anybody know what happened with the deal the Bush administration was working on with Australia? I haven't heard anything about that in a while now, and I'm just wondering if it was ratified/passed/whatever.

[bascule]

Every effort should be made to limit air pollution. Money is fictional, we all just made it up, but our health and our life isn't.

 

Well, your overall sentiment is good: if something is going to hurt people, we should work to prevent that.

 

However money isn't "fictional", it's a symbolic quantity by which we can granularly represent the relative value of any type of commodity.

 

Just how well we can protect people from being hurt depends very much on how much money you throw at the problem. However the supply of money is finite, and to throw more money at one problem naturally requires that you decrease the amount of money you are throwing at other problems.

 

Now, there's a big problem regarding trying to prevent global warming from hurting people: we don't understand the planetary climate system, at least well enough to make reliable multi-decadal predictions. A big problem is that there are teleconnections and non-linearities throughout the climate system which we do not yet fully comprehend and twiddling with certain forcings in an attempt to solve a problem we do not fully understand may have just as drastic of undesirable consequences as not taking action at all. We simply do not know yet.

 

More research is needed. We need more reliable planetary climate models before we can even to begin to understand the full nature of the global warming issue.

 

When it really gets down to it, the earth's radiative imbalance will continue to shift and increase atmospheric heat content even if we completely undid the effects of all anthropogenic climate forcings going back to the 18th century! If the results of this are undesirable, then we're going to have to reverse the course of the natural cycle to solve the problem.

[silkworm]

bascule:

 

However money isn't "fictional", it's a symbolic quantity by which we can granularly represent the relative value of any type of commodity.

 

It's fictional because it is symbolic and would have no meaning if we had no faith in it. Neither is the money something earns an adequate representation of value due to the human fantasy of self importance and humanity's imaginary divorce from nature. So, money is everyone's imaginary tea party, where the tea isn't finite because it was made up in the first place. And in reality real money isn't finite because it cycles.

 

Just how well we can protect people from being hurt depends very much on how much money you throw at the problem.

 

Throw money at a dying man and see what wins, money or nature. However, if the man had taken better care of himself in cheap ways like diet and exercise (which may even cost him less money than if he lived as an average American), he probably wouldn't be dying that soon.

 

More research is needed. We need more reliable planetary climate models before we can even to begin to understand the full nature of the global warming issue.

 

I agree, however global warming and air polution are not inventions of the media. It's really happening. Seems to me that that is the popular scientific opinion anyway, judging by the density of articles I've seen concerning global warming recently.

 

I do agree that it is difficult to predict the weather for the next day or the climate 30 years from now because of all the factors, but waiting for something unrealistically concrete (without any uncertainty) is putting standards against action that can only equal paralysis.

 

AL

 

There are very few environmental disasters I would approve throwing all our money at. An imminent meteor strike for sure, for instance.

 

So, you've picked your poison. I'd rather just avoid poison altogether. Look, I'm aware of opportunity costs but money is not a valid resource when considering this. Valid resources when considering opportunity costs are the real ones such as materials, energy, and labor. For example, while you can trade money for bananas, if there are no more bananas, money can't buy you one until another one is grown and you can't magically change your money into a banana.

 

What I'm getting at is money doesn't really exist so it doesn't matter how much money we spend. It's not like these very valuable faith-based life points just fly off of the face of the Earth when they're spent. They're just redirected.

 

The conservative gripe against Kyoto is that it will hurt the economy. Who cares? I don't. Money is fake, nature is not. That's all I'm saying.

[Pangloss]

For what it's worth, I don't particularly agree with you, but I think it's interesting the way you've put it and I respect your opinion on it. I think bascule put it well above when he said that he agreed with your sentiment. Obviously if something is going to hurt people, we ought not to be doing that.

 

But I think you will find that there's actually considerable disagreement in the scientific community over global warming. It's not just a conservative cause, or a politicized thing -- it's a logical position. In fact I think that's an excellent example of how we sometimes let ourselves be talked into positions, one way or the other, because of reactions to political positions. We need to be really careful about making decisions on that basis, because it's incredibly dangerous.

 

Ironically, some of the very same people who sometimes warn us about repeating the mistakes of history (phrenology, anyone?) are repeating them when it comes to global warming. I've seen articles in places like Scientific American and Skeptic using terms like "global warming deniers". What a politicized phrase THAT is! As if any dissention at all makes one a "denier" and likens one to Holocaust deniers! Of course you didn't say that, Silkworm, and please don't think I'm trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just pointing out where making decisions for political reasons can lead.

 

You've got some great points there, and like many moderates I'm supportive of increasing pollution and emmission standards. But there are also lines I'm really not willing to cross right now just because Leonardo and Oprah tell me it's so.

[padren]

I have to admit I am not up on all the science, but I think there is a valid argument to taking some precautionary steps even if all the evidence isn't in yet on such a topic.

If an asteroid was coming towards the Earth, but scientists disagreed on whether it would definately hit us, suggesting we take half of the time of its approach to do further research, would it not be prudent to prepare for the worst, given the time limit involved?

 

I am not suggesting that we act as if every chicken little should be given a grand army to fight the End of Times, but the goals of Kyoto and pollution do have benefits on more fronts than just the potential of global warming, since polution as a whole has become a real health problem. And, if there is a pretty good theory as to the interaction of the amount of green house gasses currently being released and a theory of their general impact on escaping light - even if we don't have good models for the global climate, isn't there a point were we can say "hey, if industry has a high enough chemical output that it contributes to changes in the atmosphere, can we get creative and cut down on those impacts, until we understand the potential impacts better?"

 

If industry has little or no impact at all on the atmosphere, then its not an issue, but I'd argue anything that does impact any global system, should be treated carefully, and more so for our lack of understanding the total system, than the reverse.

[doG]

I agree' date=' however global warming and air polution are not inventions of the media. It's really happening. Seems to me that that is the popular scientific opinion anyway, judging by the density of articles I've seen concerning global warming recently.

 

I do agree that it is difficult to predict the weather for the next day or the climate 30 years from now because of all the factors, but waiting for something unrealistically concrete (without any uncertainty) is putting standards against action that can only equal paralysis. [/quote']

It's happening but why? That is a question that needs to be answered before we just start throwing money at trying to do something about it without even knowing what it is we're supposed to be working on. For now, more research on causes is the best approach in my opinion. We may find that the largest factor is some solar condition we have no control over. If that's the case we need to worry about getting off the planet instead of trying to fix it. That's an extreme example but it illustrates why we shouldn't just try to throw money at a problem we may not even be able to fix.

 

What I'm getting at is money doesn't really exist so it doesn't matter how much money we spend. It's not like these very valuable faith-based life points just fly off of the face of the Earth when they're spent. They're just redirected.

 

The conservative gripe against Kyoto is that it will hurt the economy. Who cares? I don't. Money is fake' date=' nature is not. That's all I'm saying.[/quote']

It's not just that it will hurt the economy, it will hurt the environment even more. As soon as you place additional restrictions on manufacturers in the US for instance you will drive the manufacturing of those products to manufacturers in countries uninhibited by the treaty. This is a natural goal of manufacturing to reduce the cost of manufacturing. As a result, goods that are now manufactured by more modern manufacturers will move to less modern manufacturers in third world countries. The net result is higher emmissions for the same products thereby causing even more harm. The Kyoto Treaty creates an incentive for this to happen by including exemptions for countries that are less modernized.

 

The Kyoto Treaty could only work if there were zero exemptions to it for any country and even then, it would only contribute to solving the global warming problem if we actually found the issues it addresses to be part of the problem; right now we don't know that it does this.