The Kyoto protocol is a complete fraud

[Vito De Lucia]

********
I am starting a new thread - I posted it twice in the original thread
but did not appear - it might be due to some delay (which I have never
experienced though), so duplicates might pop up later on
********

Hi,

Titan Point wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:47:51 +0100, Vito De Lucia wrote:

>>Read IPCC 2001 WGIII, IPSEP report, CEF report, EPA 1998 report as a
>>starter.

>Crap. The consensus amongst economists who have studied the Kyoto >Treaty
>was that the Kyoto Protocol would damage the economies of Western
>industrialised nations.

Not so. There is a convergence among top-down models towards positive
costs. The image is not dramatic though, and highly dependent on
assumptions.

An example is the efforts of the Stanford energy modeling forum 1999*:
The range of GDP losses in 2010 for US is 0.42% to 1.96%, for Japan
0.19% to 1.88%.

*IPCC 2001 WGIII

From bottom-up models, however, the picture changes. The range extends
to encompass net negative costs.

Incorporating no regrets options and ancillary benefits shifts the
picture further towards net negative costs.

IPCC 2001 WGIII is an interesting read and presents the state of the
literature.
(www.ipcc.ch)

IPSEP report (available for both US and EU) shows how by pursuing
least-cost paths and all available no-regrets options the overall cost
of Kyoto implementation is going to be net negative.
(www.ipsep.org - short summary of the report for US:
http://www.ipsep.org/flex_shortsum.pdf)

CEF report is a comprehensive study which presents all available
opportunities (US) to reap the benefits of increased energy efficiency
and move towards clean energy.
(http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/Energy_Eff/CEF.htm)

An additional example:
Nature 413, 478 - 479 (2001)

Carbon emissions: The economic benefits of the Kyoto Protocol

GIULIO A. DE LEO*, LUCA RIZZI†, ANDREA CAIZZI† & MARINO GATTO§

* Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Università degli Studi di Parma,
Parco Area delle Scienze, Parma 43100, Italy
† Centro Elettrotecnico Sperimentale Italiano, Business Unit Ambiente,
Via Reggio Emilia 39, Segrate 20092, Italy
§ Centro di Ingegneria Biomedica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche,
Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, Milano 20133, Italy

The third Conference of the Parties in Kyoto set the target of reducing
greenhouse-gas emissions by an average of 5.3% with respect to 1990
values by 2008–2012. One of the main objections to the protocol's
ratification is that compliance would pose an unbearable economic burden
on the countries involved. But we show here that this is not the case if
costs apart from the direct costs of energy production are also
considered. Costs are also incurred in rectifying damage to human
health, material goods, agriculture and the environment related to
greenhouse-gas emissions.

>>The Kyoto protocol implementation will be administered by UNFCCC and
>>COP/MOP to the KP. The choices of single countries will be
>>administered by the single countries within the overall framework of
>>the UNFCCC/KP, which they agreed upon by signature and ratification.

>In other words UN control over sovereign countries' economic activity.

Not so. A concerted approach towards a common goal.

>>See above. Also, the Kyoto Protocol represents only the first
>>commitment period. In subsequent periods, more countries will take up
>>commitments, like India and China.

>Except that at subsequent COP7 summit in Delhi where India and China
>were asked about joining further
>protocols, they replied in the negative, citing the effect on their
>"developing economies"

COP8. And yes, those countries refused to commit themselves - at that
stage. They were also heavily lobbied by the US delegation to do so.
This shows in fact how it is important that all Annex I countries take
up their responsibilities, so as to make sure the global efforts to come
won't be jeopardised.

>>One of the principles of the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol is that of common
>>but differentiated responsibiliy. Historical polluters will take
>>action first, also considering their capabilities, while developing
>>countries are primarily concerned with their development.

>Which I'll translate as: whoever environmentalists hate most, pay >first.

Silly statement. Nobody is out to get anybody.

>>It is clear that the effort will ultimately have to be global, but as >>a
>>starting point, the rationale between the differentiated commitments
>>is solid and equitable.
>>Unless you think that US pollutes and India and China should clean up!

>Unless you're gullible enough to believe that carbon dioxide is a
>pollutant, and that India and China would give up their economic growth
>advantage had the US signed Kyoto.

It is a pollutant with regards to the modifications of the atmospheric
composition derived from C02 build-up. Radiative forcing and all that
stuff....

>>It is called international law, i.e. countries sitting together to a
>>table to address common issues and establish rules.

>>Unless you think that all international laws should be scrapped
>>because they limit national sovereignity (on a voluntary basis), in
>>which case, I rest my case :-(

>Handed over to the UN's IPCC a non-elected, self-selected body?

Ah. What are you saying here? IPCC is a research body. It has no
governance authority. It presents its assessments to the international
community, which decides what to make of it.

>>The Kyoto Protocol is based on the best available science and the
>>application of the Precautionary principle.
>>That you disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus does not
>>mean that consensus is wrong-headed.

>The Kyoto Protocol was based on economic and climactic models which >were
>subsequently shown to be wildly inaccurate.

>Where is the Precautionary Principle in regard to the Kyoto Protocol?

Developments in both science and economics seem to reinforce the notion
that we have to act.

There are not the conditions to apply the PP to the Kyoto protocol.
Besides, the PP is a decision-making tool specifically aimed at
environmental risk management.

"...lack of scientific certainty shall not be a reason to postpone
action in the face of potential large and irreversible damage..."

>By the way, the impact of the Kyoto Protocol would have been to reduce
>the
>global temperature RISE by 0.06C (which is unmeasureable by any
>instrumentation
>system we have today). So the temperature would still rise, but by an
>unmeasureable amount less than it would have.

>That was all worth it, wasn't it?

The KP is a first step. As such is not supposed to be the solution.
While not perfect, it certainly beats doing nothing.

thanks
ciao
Vito

--
--------------------------------------
Searching for the hermit in vain

I asked a boy beneath the pines.
He said, "The master's gone alone
Herb-picking somewhere in the mounts,
Cloud-hidden, whereabouts unknown."

Chia Tao (777-841)
---------------------------------------

[Ian St. John]

"Vito De Lucia" <luciv@nospam_online.no> wrote in message
news:3E77993F.4020902@nospam_online.no...

> ********
> I am starting a new thread - I posted it twice in the original thread
> but did not appear - it might be due to some delay (which I have never
> experienced though), so duplicates might pop up later on

Hi Vito. You may have more problems than you realise.

I tried to send you an email taking the 'nospam' out of your address

Reporting-MTA: dns; xxxxx.xxxxx.xxxxxx
Arrival-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:29:06 -0500 (EST)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; blue...@arcana.net
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host arcana.net[208.234.1.118] said: 550
<blue...@arcana.net>... Relaying denied

P.S. about your post, must be problems with your ISP or reader. The FOUR
copies arrived on MY
reader and so did this one..

Cheers ;-)