What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Kyoto cost in real dollars.

sitarro

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
5,186
Reaction score
1,028
Points
153
Location
USA
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.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
38,794
Reaction score
29,655
Points
2,905
Location
Arizona
AHHAHAHAH LOL thats great stuff. What a waste!!!
 

jodylee

Active Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
405
Reaction score
65
Points
28
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.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Very un-PC:

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

5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car-Happy Culture

By Ted Balaker and Sam Staley
Sunday, January 28, 2007; B03

They don't rate up there with cancer and al-Qaeda -- at least not yet -- but suburban sprawl and automobiles are rapidly acquiring a reputation as scourges of modern American society. Sprawl, goes the typical indictment, devours open space, exacerbates global warming and causes pollution, social alienation and even obesity. And cars are the evil co-conspirator -- the driving force, so to speak, behind sprawl.

Yet the anti-suburbs culture has also fostered many myths about sprawl and driving, a few of which deserve to be reconsidered:

1.Americans are addicted to driving.

Actually, Americans aren't addicted to their cars any more than office workers are addicted to their computers. Both items are merely tools that allow people to accomplish tasks faster and more conveniently. The New York metropolitan area is home to the nation's most extensive transit system, yet even there it takes transit riders about twice as long as drivers to get to work.

In 1930, the interstate highway system and the rise of suburbia were still decades away, and yet car ownership was already widespread, with three in four households having an automobile. Look at any U.S. city and the car is the dominant mode of travel.

Some claim that Europeans have developed an enlightened alternative. Americans return from London and Paris and tell their friends that everyone gets around by transit. But tourists tend to confine themselves to the central cities. Europeans may enjoy top-notch transit and endure gasoline that costs $5 per gallon, but in fact they don't drive much less than we do. In the United States, automobiles account for about 88 percent of travel. In Europe, the figure is about 78 percent. And Europeans are gaining on us.

The key factor that affects driving habits isn't population density, public transit availability, gasoline taxes or even different attitudes. It's wealth. Europe and the United States are relatively wealthy, but American incomes are 15 to 40 percent higher than those in Western Europe. And as nations such as China and India become wealthier, the portion of their populations that drive cars will grow.

2.Public transit can reduce traffic congestion...
 

jodylee

Active Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
405
Reaction score
65
Points
28
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.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Great post:

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

Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Global Warming Groundhog Day

One unfailingly entertaining aspect about the global Global Warming fracas is the intellectual sophistry—though that may be too flattering a word, since sophists possess the veneer of plausability—of the environmentalist movement. The argument, as it is played out in a peculiarly fractured way in the mass media, goes something like this:

— Listen, we’ve got global warming.
— Mmm.
— So will you sign on to this protocol?
— Nah. Gutting American industry doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.
— But the world is going to end in ten years.
— So how will not opening a few new car factories help? And wouldn’t this protocol encourage our chief competitors to open their own new factories while we’re hamstrung here?
— Because it will. Sign here, please.
— I don’t think that’s good policy.
— Listen. Why do you hate science?
— I don’t hate s—
— You’re a crazy Christian, aren’t you?
— What? Yes, the earth is getting warmer but this cycle’s been happening f—
— What we need to do then is sign this protocol here. Ready to sign?
— …
— Here’s a pen.
— …
— Sign.
— Look, the problem is that even if you can throw off a million years’ worth of evidence and demonstrate that human industry, in the plink of time we’ve had here, has caused a planet-killing shift in atmosphere, your ideas about fixing it are absolutely unworkable. I mean, it’s a gnat compared to the leviathan weight of human history you claim led us here.
— Stop it. OK? Just stop. Look at this picture. It shows a mountain with snow. Now, that was fifty years ago. Here’s another picture. What do you see?
— No snow.
— No snow! How can you not believe in global warming now, you planet-hating bastard? Don’t you understand that there is a scientific consensus? A consensus!
— Right, I know it’s getting warmer.
— Then sign on to my policy slate. Don’t read it. Just sign.
— No.
— When will we ever convince you Global Warming skeptics?

And that’s how it goes. For a glimpse of how this sort of tack is taken against President Bush, read this post on National Review’s The Corner, which details all the various times Bush has “finally” admitted the existence of Global Warming.

Posted on January 30, 2007 12:55 PM.

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=

Bush and Warming [Rich Lowry]

An e-mail:

The media is re-running old “gotcha’s” against Bush. Unfortunately, they weren’t accurate the first time, either:​

Associated Press, Jan. 27, 2007:

Now even George W. Bush says [climate change is] a problem. […] [D]uring last week's State of the Union address Bush finally referred to global warming as an established fact.​

Finally! The first time! At least, since 2005:

In 2005, however, Europeans sensed a shift when Bush was asked about the issue in Denmark. "Listen," [President Bush] said, "I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem."
And that was — finally! – the first time Bush had acknowledged it…since 2004, when:

A Bush administration report suggests that evidence of global warming has begun to affect animal and plant populations in visible ways, and that rising temperatures in North America are due in part to human activity.​

Finally! The first time the Bush administration ever acknowledged global warming! At least, since 2001, when President Bush said:

First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. […] And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.​

Apparently, the media has to rediscover this “finally” moment every year or so.

01/30 12:12 PM

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

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top