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).
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 - €13,000bn - 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.
Meanwhile, some scientists persist in trying to work out what's really going on:
"Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges" (.pdf) -
"Henrik Svensmark draws attention to an overlooked mechanism of climate change: clouds seeded by cosmic rays." (A&G, February 2007, Vol. 48)
Many billions of dollars have already been squandered on this farce and now it really begins.
What a stupid game this is.
