The Price of Kyoto

[Stunt]

Kyoto from the get-go has been a controversial agreement and beyond the legislation's flaws, I want to understand the real costs of implementing a strategy of greenhouse gas emissions. There have been some compelling studies endorsing the concept of global warming and add 'global dimming' to the equation and we might have more of an animal than we might think.

Personally I am of the mindset that the earth is warming (as expected; it does go in and out of iceages) but I do feel there is an unnatural imbalance taking place accelerating significant and negative climate change. As a libertarian, I want limited state involvement in this and I'd rather have citizens within a country demand corporations set ethical environmental standards. Unfortunately CO2 emissions are not accepted as a pollutant by enough people or corporations to make the difference alone. I am getting scary flashbacks to smoking craze where people were aware or at least knew smoking was bad; but there were cover-ups and campaigns to make it look less worse than it was.

We hear from economists that implementing Kyoto would cost our nations billions upon billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. I am interested in understanding how they come to these conclusions as there many unknowns in this clearly defined outcome. For example, you could say a tax could raise costs of manufacturing and reduce profits/jobs and you could look at all the people who work for coal and oil companies. What about the industry created by researching new technology to export to the world; all willing to invest in emissions reductions. What about the investment in construction projects all paid for by the same funds allocated to coal and oil sectors.

I really question the models out there that say the costs are through the roof when there are several european countries who have implemented and gone beyond kyoto targets, experienced good growth. Lets look at UK for example.
[CO2 emissions]http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/progress/national/images/1.gif[/l]
Kyoto target: 12.5% (compared to EU = 8%, US = 7%, Canada = 6%)
Current reduction since kyoto: 13%
GDP Growth
UK unemployment
UK employment

What are your thoughts on:
a) The cost of reducing emissions
b) The UK example
c) Global climate change
d) Kyoto

Discuss.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Kyoto is a junk agreement in terms of action - the only value I see in countries signing on is that it will never actually come into effect, but it has brought climate change into the public eye.

Corporations and markets cannot fix climate change because the environment is one giant externality; it does not get a 'say' in economic activity unless specifically given one by legislation.

Each individual can make choices with impunity, knowing that it won't make any difference, but in aggregate, the cost of ignoring the environment is enourmous.

Rather than framing your debate as 'the cost of reducing carbon emissions' try framing it as 'the cost of not doing so'. You can start by trying to estimate how much of the world we'll be able to keep above sea level, for how long.

There's no reason for Kyoto to cost jobs, but there's no reason to go the Kyoto route in the first place; trading carbon credits is retarded. What is needed is implementation of technologies that make sense in areas where growth and replacement are common anyway.

Nuclear power and plug-in electric commuter cars would be a great start.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

but there's no reason to go the Kyoto route in the first place; trading carbon credits is retarded. What is needed is implementation of technologies that make sense in areas where growth and replacement are common anyway.

:thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

I'm sure all the Economy busting predictions were Worst Case scenarios.

Here's a link appropriate to the thread, not much for hard numbers, but shows why action is needed now and not sometime in the distant future.

 

[Strk]

I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions, but Kyoto was flawed from the beginning.

 

[CycloWizard]

If we had agreed to the Kyoto treaty, I would be worth my weight (many times over) in gold - and I'm a hefty guy. I am in the perfect spot to gain everything from a serious investment in such treatment programs and the development of the relevant technologies. However, I am also in the perfect spot to see why that is not the best course of action.

Just as in economics, there are diminishing returns when you're dealing with chemical reactions as well. It's easy to get the first large chunk of Chemical X out of your waste strea. However, as you need lower and lower concentrations, the volume of the reactor required will (generally speaking, though there are many factors involved) go up exponentially. This sounds bad, but doesn't really do the situation justice because the cost of building said reactor will scale exponentially with the volume, since reactors are generally sold at a cost that is some power law of the weight of the reactor.

<dork>For a simple cylinder, the volume:area ratio increases as r*h/(2*(h+r)), where r is the radius and h is the height. Weight is some factor of area for a constant wall thickness. The radius is generally constrained by mass distribution concerns, so you end up with a long, skinny reactor that has a very surface area for a relatively small volume and the cost is enormous. Thus, the cost:benefit ratio declines very rapidly as the purity of the waste stream increases.</dork>

The solution that I've proposed before (and that no one seems to like) is that instead of dumping billions into cleaning up that last 0.1% of pollution coming out of the local factory's stack, spend that same money elsewhere (e.g. India). By putting this same money to work in a currently unregulated environment, the gains will be much larger for the same cost, essentially giving us the most bang for our buck.

 

[Stunt]

Interesting concept Cyclo; investing in the 3rd world to allow them to grow without the pollution and emissions they are currently adding.

I read somewhere that China has 3 coal plants opening every week; something ridiculous. And these are not clean coal facilities...

 

[DVK916]

The price of not doing kyoto is billions dead by 2100.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DVK916
The price of not doing kyoto is billions dead by 2100.

Population control

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I read somewhere that China has 3 coal plants opening every week; something ridiculous. And these are not clean coal facilities...

That's just plain criminal

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Interesting concept Cyclo; investing in the 3rd world to allow them to grow without the pollution and emissions they are currently adding.

I read somewhere that China has 3 coal plants opening every week; something ridiculous. And these are not clean coal facilities...

Isn't that how Carbon Trading currently works?

 

[Harvey]

The cost of not taking strong action to fight global warming and other pollution is the death of humanity with a lot of suffering along the way. A lot of good money will do anyone if we don't find some solutions and implement them.

Good planets are hard to find.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
I read somewhere that China has 3 coal plants opening every week; something ridiculous. And these are not clean coal facilities...

That's just plain criminal

Kyoto vs. China/US/India

Coal in China

562 Chinese coal plants expected in the next 6 years.
72 in the US.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt
Interesting concept Cyclo; investing in the 3rd world to allow them to grow without the pollution and emissions they are currently adding.

I read somewhere that China has 3 coal plants opening every week; something ridiculous. And these are not clean coal facilities...

Isn't that how Carbon Trading currently works?

China and India are not included in Kyoto.
How can you trade with nations with no goals to reduce emissions?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt
Interesting concept Cyclo; investing in the 3rd world to allow them to grow without the pollution and emissions they are currently adding.

I read somewhere that China has 3 coal plants opening every week; something ridiculous. And these are not clean coal facilities...

Isn't that how Carbon Trading currently works?

China and India are not included in Kyoto.
How can you trade with nations with no goals to reduce emissions?

Oh, you meant those 2. ok.

I think we should start up the next stage of the process earlier than planned. Get China/India included in some fashion. Even if we let them off easier than others, at least get them moving in the right direction.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt
Interesting concept Cyclo; investing in the 3rd world to allow them to grow without the pollution and emissions they are currently adding.

I read somewhere that China has 3 coal plants opening every week; something ridiculous. And these are not clean coal facilities...

Isn't that how Carbon Trading currently works?

China and India are not included in Kyoto.
How can you trade with nations with no goals to reduce emissions?

Oh, you meant those 2. ok.

I think we should start up the next stage of the process earlier than planned. Get China/India included in some fashion. Even if we let them off easier than others, at least get them moving in the right direction.

China represents 16% of the world's CO2 emissions...yeah I think they should be included.

 

[Rainsford]

I think the big problem with ANY discussion of economics of pollution (of any sort, not just that related to global warming), fossil fuel dependency, etc, is that the argument tends to be a struggle between groups that just want to keep doing whatever they are doing and groups that want them to stop. It's a silly argument in that context because it ignores the basic practical rules of how change happens...in economics or anywhere else. "Meeting Kyoto" or any other arbitrary standards would have a HUGELY negative impact on our economy without any other changes.

And that's the key, reducing emissions can't happen by itself. As some astute people have noticed, "green" technology is going to be a huge growth area in the near future, and it will give Western countries a huge economic edge over countries who have an industrial revolution approach to waste. As China and India realize the corner they are backing themselves into, they will be forced to buy the products we've spent years developing. Replacing coal power plants with solar farms might not be so good for the power plant owners, but it will be a net economic gain in the long term for the rest of us...including the folks who build the new, clean, power sources. Which is really the economic point, it says that overall things will be good, not that everyone will get rich doing whatever the hell they want. The negative economic projections not only seem to assume that no change will happen in affected industries, but it takes a suspiciously short view, where the long term economic benefits of decreasing the amount of fossil fuel we burn are not taken into account. And they especially ignore the fact that green energy sources are getting cheaper, while fossil fuels are getting more expensive...a trend that can't possibly reverse itself.

As for my view on "global climate change", I think the argument centered around that is scientifically interesting (and Al Gore is probably more right than his detractors), but it's really pretty irrelevant. The problems with continuing to burn fossil fuels for our energy needs are obvious whether or not you think we'll change the climate by doing so. For one thing, we're going to run out of cheap fossil fuels sooner or later, and given that it will probably be around the same thing the energy needs of nations like China and India are greatest, I'd like to be relying mostly on something else.

 

[ProfJohn]

I think we already touched on why Kyoto is such a worthless treaty.
It only applies to the developed nations in the world, not the developing ones.

So while we spend billions of dollars trying to make our already clean factories and power plants even cleaner the India and Chinas of the world open up dirty coal plants without a second thought.

Take this idea and spread it to the whole global warming scare and you see why so many people are not happy with the way the issue is presented. Again, all these environmentalists (Al Gore types) focus on what the west should be doing and how much they should be spending, but ignore the fact that the growth of CO2 and other pollutants are going to be primarily from these growing countries.
The US may in fact produce 20% of all the world?s pollutants, or whatever the percentage is, but over the next 20 years the gross amount of pollutants coming from the US will most likely rise very little. In the meantime China and India will see the amount of pollution coming from their countries double. The best and most effective way to stop this growth is to work with these countries to enact tougher standards. And perhaps back that up with economic aid aimed directly at pollution reducing.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt
Interesting concept Cyclo; investing in the 3rd world to allow them to grow without the pollution and emissions they are currently adding.

I read somewhere that China has 3 coal plants opening every week; something ridiculous. And these are not clean coal facilities...

Isn't that how Carbon Trading currently works?

China and India are not included in Kyoto.
How can you trade with nations with no goals to reduce emissions?

Oh, you meant those 2. ok.

I think we should start up the next stage of the process earlier than planned. Get China/India included in some fashion. Even if we let them off easier than others, at least get them moving in the right direction.

China represents 16% of the world's CO2 emissions...yeah I think they should be included.

And in a few years their emissions are going the pass the US. They have large population that is becoming industrialized very quickly. Leaving them out would mean more industry would move to this largely unregulated country.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think we already touched on why Kyoto is such a worthless treaty.
It only applies to the developed nations in the world, not the developing ones.

So while we spend billions of dollars trying to make our already clean factories and power plants even cleaner the India and Chinas of the world open up dirty coal plants without a second thought.

Take this idea and spread it to the whole global warming scare and you see why so many people are not happy with the way the issue is presented. Again, all these environmentalists (Al Gore types) focus on what the west should be doing and how much they should be spending, but ignore the fact that the growth of CO2 and other pollutants are going to be primarily from these growing countries.
The US may in fact produce 20% of all the world?s pollutants, or whatever the percentage is, but over the next 20 years the gross amount of pollutants coming from the US will most likely rise very little. In the meantime China and India will see the amount of pollution coming from their countries double. The best and most effective way to stop this growth is to work with these countries to enact tougher standards. And perhaps back that up with economic aid aimed directly at pollution reducing.

That's silly. By your logic any step in the right direction is useless unless it totally fixes the problem. Obviously it would be best for ALL countries to really work on reducing their use of fossil fuels and the amount of pollution they release, but surely SOME progress is better than none at all. And lest we forget, Western countries have always led the technological charge, I see no reason that approach won't work here as well. You have to start somewhere, a green energy revolution isn't going to happen overnight. And I think it's most realistic, and most beneficial, for countries like the United States to lead the way. And like I said, the economic downsides of doing so are greatly exaggerated...especially in the long term.

You want to know why I think "so many people are not happy with the way the issue is presented"? Because it's a big problem that will require major changes in how we live, and faced with something like that, people like to stick their heads in the sand and wish for the problem to go away. But it's not going to. Even if you hate Al Gore, or think the "greenie-weenies" are a bunch of radical idiots, consider this. In 100 years or less, our society will either have moved away from burning fossil fuels for energy or it will have ceased to exist as we know it today. And that's an optimistic projection. Pollution from fossil fuels is bad for our environment, and we're going to run out, probably within my lifetime. You argument about what's "fair" couldn't be less relevant, this is a problem that needs to be faced rationally, and I don't know about you, but I don't trust China and India to be that far thinking. If they want to revert to the 18th century at the end of the 21st, I'm not sure we can stop them...but I see no reason to be dragged along with them.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt
Interesting concept Cyclo; investing in the 3rd world to allow them to grow without the pollution and emissions they are currently adding.

I read somewhere that China has 3 coal plants opening every week; something ridiculous. And these are not clean coal facilities...

Isn't that how Carbon Trading currently works?

China and India are not included in Kyoto.
How can you trade with nations with no goals to reduce emissions?

Oh, you meant those 2. ok.

I think we should start up the next stage of the process earlier than planned. Get China/India included in some fashion. Even if we let them off easier than others, at least get them moving in the right direction.

China represents 16% of the world's CO2 emissions...yeah I think they should be included.

And in a few years their emissions are going the pass the US. They have large population that is becoming industrialized very quickly. Leaving them out would mean more industry would move to this largely unregulated country.

Indeed...but they're just getting into the industrial revolution. When they finally decide to start "going green", I think the US will be in a PERFECT position to reverse the trade imbalance by selling them the technology needed to do so.

 

[charrison]

If global warming is the real threat it is proclaimed to be, there is really only one solution and that is nuclear power. With nuclear power we could close all of the coal fired plant and that alone would probably drop out co2 emissions by 50%. IF the greens continue to say wind and solar is the answer we know global warming really is not a problem. Neither one of those power resources are are anywhere near able to provide the energy our economy needs at this point in time.


That being said, nuclear power and nuclear waste recycling is the answer to global warming.
Wind and solar are not there yet. Wind is probably capable of providing 10-20% of our power needs and it is starting to become a cost effective solution. Solar probably needs another 10-20 years before it become a competitive solution.

On an interesting note, walmart has started a push this year to sell 100million(one for each household in the US) CF bulbs. If they are successful in this would be the equivalent of turning off 2 power plants. Walmart also said they saved $6M last year by switching their to CF bulbs in their ceiling fan displays.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think we already touched on why Kyoto is such a worthless treaty.
It only applies to the developed nations in the world, not the developing ones.

So while we spend billions of dollars trying to make our already clean factories and power plants even cleaner the India and Chinas of the world open up dirty coal plants without a second thought.

Take this idea and spread it to the whole global warming scare and you see why so many people are not happy with the way the issue is presented. Again, all these environmentalists (Al Gore types) focus on what the west should be doing and how much they should be spending, but ignore the fact that the growth of CO2 and other pollutants are going to be primarily from these growing countries.
The US may in fact produce 20% of all the world?s pollutants, or whatever the percentage is, but over the next 20 years the gross amount of pollutants coming from the US will most likely rise very little. In the meantime China and India will see the amount of pollution coming from their countries double. The best and most effective way to stop this growth is to work with these countries to enact tougher standards. And perhaps back that up with economic aid aimed directly at pollution reducing.

Pollutants, yes, but not CO2.

The west has done a pretty good job of reducing 'pollutants' with catalytic converters, cleaner technologies, etc. It is an ongoing process, but in terms of 'poisoning' our world, we're on the right track, even if we're not htere yet.

CO2 pretty much maps directly to total energy use, because most of our energy comes from fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro-electric, and the easiest of those to expand in this world and today's political climate is fossil fuels.

Unless that changes, North America will continue to be leaders in the CO2 problem as long as our energy use grows. China and India may become huge contributors as well, but that won't really reduce our impact.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Stunt
Interesting concept Cyclo; investing in the 3rd world to allow them to grow without the pollution and emissions they are currently adding.

I read somewhere that China has 3 coal plants opening every week; something ridiculous. And these are not clean coal facilities...

Isn't that how Carbon Trading currently works?

China and India are not included in Kyoto.
How can you trade with nations with no goals to reduce emissions?

Oh, you meant those 2. ok.

I think we should start up the next stage of the process earlier than planned. Get China/India included in some fashion. Even if we let them off easier than others, at least get them moving in the right direction.

China represents 16% of the world's CO2 emissions...yeah I think they should be included.

And in a few years their emissions are going the pass the US. They have large population that is becoming industrialized very quickly. Leaving them out would mean more industry would move to this largely unregulated country.

Indeed...but they're just getting into the industrial revolution. When they finally decide to start "going green", I think the US will be in a PERFECT position to reverse the trade imbalance by selling them the technology needed to do so.

Well if global warming is the problem it is claimed to be, but the time china is done industrializing it will be too later. Have china start now. I would rather china bring online 300 nuke plants than 600 coal plants. China is in the position to make the needed changes. imagine what china brown cloud is going to look like after after they bring on another 500 coal plants.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think we already touched on why Kyoto is such a worthless treaty.
It only applies to the developed nations in the world, not the developing ones.

So while we spend billions of dollars trying to make our already clean factories and power plants even cleaner the India and Chinas of the world open up dirty coal plants without a second thought.

Take this idea and spread it to the whole global warming scare and you see why so many people are not happy with the way the issue is presented. Again, all these environmentalists (Al Gore types) focus on what the west should be doing and how much they should be spending, but ignore the fact that the growth of CO2 and other pollutants are going to be primarily from these growing countries.
The US may in fact produce 20% of all the world?s pollutants, or whatever the percentage is, but over the next 20 years the gross amount of pollutants coming from the US will most likely rise very little. In the meantime China and India will see the amount of pollution coming from their countries double. The best and most effective way to stop this growth is to work with these countries to enact tougher standards. And perhaps back that up with economic aid aimed directly at pollution reducing.

Pollutants, yes, but not CO2.

The west has done a pretty good job of reducing 'pollutants' with catalytic converters, cleaner technologies, etc. It is an ongoing process, but in terms of 'poisoning' our world, we're on the right track, even if we're not htere yet.

CO2 pretty much maps directly to total energy use, because most of our energy comes from fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro-electric, and the easiest of those to expand in this world and today's political climate is fossil fuels.

Unless that changes, North America will continue to be leaders in the CO2 problem as long as our energy use grows. China and India may become huge contributors as well, but that won't really reduce our impact.

China is set to surpass us CO2 emission in just a few years. THey have more people and faster growth.