Kyoto cost in real dollars.

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by sitarro, Jan 24, 2007.

  1. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    I heard publisher Tom Nilloy, on a radio show out of Denver.....very interesting guy. Below is his site.



    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html


    Kyoto Count Up!

    February 16, 2005
    Updated: August 22, 2005
    Again: September 23, 2005



    The seemingly interminable Kyoto countdown is over - now we begin to count UP (the cost).

    Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about 290,724,777,695 US $ and climbing at an astronomical rate while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is .003014927 ?C.
    (to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly "saved." Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1 ?C.

    So, how do we arrive at these incredible numbers?

    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 ±0.7 ?C anyway.

    Sept. 23, 2005: The IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) guesstimates were somewhat indigestible (as you can see, eye-popping but just too big to be useful). While it is true that plenty of other such estimates have surfaced and been bandied about there is simply no realistic expectation that any country, or group of countries, would engage in so foolish and costly an enterprise - just never going to happen. So why settle on $150 billion per annum? Simple really, it's just the round-down result of 1.5% GDP growth restraint of committed countries (not the whole EU 15 though, basically just the UK, Denmark, France and Germany along with Canada and Japan) and no allowance for suppression of global trade or collateral damage to developing world economies. So, ringing up significant price tags is not difficult, the hard parts is constraining the proposed cost to the point where countries might plausibly adhere to such a self-destructive path. -- Ed.

    For our cost values we basically went with the optimistic guesstimate of $150 billion per annum compliance cost. This figure is divided to an amount per second and accumulated in 0.05 second increments. Granted, we could have used much more aggressive cost estimates but we just can't see the governments of the EU, Japan and maybe Canada being permitted to squander any more funds that could be usefully applied to such frivolous pursuits as domestic health care, third world development aid or even infrastructure repair and replacement.

    Update August 22, 2005: Our cost estimate is extremely conservative - see: "Cost of ending global warming 'too high'" - "BRINGING global warming to an end would cost almost half global GDP - Ä13,000bn - at least, one London analyst has calculated. Charles Dumas of Lombard Street Research says this is many times the cost of dealing with the damaging effects of global warming." (Unison.ie) | EDITOR'S NOTE: Full report available at http://www.lombardstreetresearch.com/Content/Home.asp | Global warming's £10 trillion cost (The Scotsman)

    Kyoto would cost a million Euro jobs, 80 billion euros by 2010 (NBR)

    The above guesstimates do not include the billions allocated to "global warming" research ($2 billion per annum in the US alone), "alternative" energy research ($3 billion in the US) and subsidy ($? lots, with forced market share), public indoctrination education campaigns, public monies misdirected to NGOs and other pressure groups or the donations frightened out of the public by the various foundations and alleged charities acting against human interest. These additional funds are the gravy train of Big Warming, a multi-billion-dollar industry devoted to generating scary scenarios and pronouncements of impending doom to further their own agendas or simply maintain their grant stream and employment. Curiously, Big Warming presents the absurd idea that warming advocacy is purely altruistic while the paltry few hundred thousands in donations or grants that were (I don't know if they still are) available to help present the counter case somehow invalidates the science or opinion of anyone who dares to disagree - a position actively promoted by the mainstream but actively Left-leaning media. Quite how multi-billions don't influence while a few thousands "obviously corrupt" we have not been able to discern.

    Many billions of dollars have already been squandered on this farce and now it really begins.

    What a stupid game this is.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,850
    Thanks Received:
    2,066
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,739
    AHHAHAHAH LOL thats great stuff. What a waste!!!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. jodylee
    Offline

    jodylee Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    405
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +65
    what would be the cost of losing florida, the desertification of half the country & larger and more frequent hurracanes. Anyway, one good thing i'm sure even you can agree, from this would be renuable energy, that if you go for it, will give you energy independence. what a luxury. you can tell opec to bug off.
     
  4. Darwins Friend
    Offline

    Darwins Friend Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    181
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17
    Kyoto bad - Limbaugh good.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Very un-PC:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/26/AR2007012601589.html


     
  6. jodylee
    Offline

    jodylee Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    405
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +65
    you will find this culture of public transport in most cities accross euope not just the central ones, I should know i've lived and worked in alot of them. but I think as a whole euopeans esspecially english are as addicted to their cars as americans, this is evident in the fact that ( after a study) the average speed of a car traveling in london is 7.5 mph, the speed of a bicycle is 12mph almost twice the speed, due to traffic. also parking in london is a nightmare and very expensive, but still people prefrer to travel by car.
    the difference in america is firstly, the cities are consrtructed in a different way to euopean cities, euopean cities and simular to new york, chicago where the whole city is in one compresed block making travel quite easy. but many cities in america are typical of orlando for instance, where the city centure (down town) is a small uninhabited comercial district with bars banks and offices, and the population lives in a sprawling mass of suburbes stretching 20 or so miles from the city. in this case a bicycle would be ridiculous. so most of the country is built around the car, due to the fact your citys are so young. this would not be a problem if people didn't drive ridiculously large cars, there seems to be a shift in america to smaller cars now, and this will do a great deal to help reduce the fuel dependancy, because this is what it should be about not the environment, I quite like the idea of a mediteranian climate in england, but because of the dependance on forigen imports for energy which gives them power over you, its happening now in euope with russias gas supply and has been happening to the west eversince opec was formed.
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Great post:

    http://www.dartblog.com/data/2007/01/006940.php

    Oh and the NR post is way too telling on the MSM and the connection with his title:

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGVjMTQ5Yjg5MWFhZjMwZDYwODU0YjNjNThjNGIyMWY=

    Well, 'it's my first time' seems mighty appropriate here. GW, always a virgin?
     

Share This Page