Tyler Cowen, in India, “discusses how the people of Calcutta might adjust to rising sea levels”:http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/11/how_quickly_wil.html , how many of them would leave, etc (via “Davos Newbies”:http://www.davosnewbies.com/ ). There’s a certain Swiftian quality (no doubt unintended) to Cowen’s contemplation of the fate of these poor Indians. If the costs and burdens he suggests do fall on such people (as they probably will) then it puts in perspective the fatuousness of the arguments advanced by Bjorn Lomborg and others to the effect that we shouldn’t do anything about global warming because the costs of action will exceed the benefits. The costs will be incurred by the poor in places like India who will end up with their homes and workplaces under water, and the benefits have been and will be reaped by the already rich in the first world who carry on driving their SUVs. If the economist and policy-wonks who parrot the Lomborg line are proposing a massive compensatory transfer from the winners to the losers then I haven’t heard of it. _Qu’ils mangent de la brioche_ .
{ 1 trackback }
{ 50 comments }
Matthew2 11.12.04 at 11:12 am
No, they are just waving about the possibility of that “massive compensatory tranfer”, in order to dismiss the costs of stopping the warming, so that in the end nothing happens.
Cynical and disgusting.
Note that Lomborg’s economist friends are the kind of people that continue to state that “free trade” is purely good for poor countries.
Dan Hardie 11.12.04 at 12:29 pm
One thing to add, which I have been meaning to post on one of JQ’s Monday Message Boards: The ‘Lomborg’ line on global warming is, so far as I know, taken more-or-less entirely from William D. Nordhaus’s RICE/DICE model of global warming. I am nowhere near numerate enough to take on the Nordhaus model and its assumptions, although a number of environmentalists have done. This would, I think, be a good thing for John Quiggin to look at some time. Certainly Nordhaus is no rightwing hack- he was, besides being a highly respected economist in his own right, Paul Krugman’s first mentor; he was also the first, and pretty much the only, economist to sound a warning note over the likely costs of what Bush was telling us would be a more-or-less costless invasion of Iraq. (You remember- the Iraqi oil was going to pay for everything, and resistance would have collapsed by the autumn of 2003.)
But on global warming, Lomborg is merely the monkey to Nordhaus’s organ-grinder.
Jack 11.12.04 at 12:33 pm
It contains the great line:
“But in income-adjusted terms, are Indian cities overcrowded at all?”
Is this a reference to the American obesity problem?
Andrew Reeves 11.12.04 at 1:23 pm
The costs will be incurred by the poor in places like India who will end up with their homes and workplaces under water, and the benefits have been and will be reaped by the already rich in the first world who carry on driving their SUVs.
Pardon me for nitpicking, but I strongly suspect that the energy that powered the computer that you used to write this post came from a station that burns some form of fossil fuel. Yes, I know you are employing a piece of rhetoric, but when people talk about SUV’s in relation to globall warming/energy dependence, etc., they’re just obscuring that SUV’s aren’t the only things that use oil.
Yes, I know that it’s a good piece of rhetoric, but it’s a piece of rhetoric that really ought to be retired.
Keith Gaughan 11.12.04 at 1:43 pm
‘scuse me! SUVs aren’t all that common outside of North America: since when did it become “the west”?
jet 11.12.04 at 1:48 pm
Ah, but the real crux would be which would harm third world countries more, implementing Kyoto (with questionable results) or non-kyoto global warming. Hands down, fully implemented kyoto would do far more harm to third world nations. 100 years of slowly rising water levels or quickly induced recessions, hampering growth for a century? You’d think that the people who are usually so anti-war wouldn’t want the blood on their hands from Kyoto.
Then add to the mix that if the industrialized nations aren’t blogged down in kyoto based depressions/recessions they are much more likely to extend aid to countries harmed by global warming.
Now you start to realize why Bjorn has such a following. Occam’s razor is on his side every time.
jet 11.12.04 at 1:52 pm
“If the economist and policy-wonks who parrot the Lomborg line are proposing a massive compensatory transfer from the winners to the losers then I haven’t heard of it.”
Wouldn’t that sort of planning be a bit…..premature? Or did the flooding of cities already occur while I was sleeping?
dsquared 11.12.04 at 2:18 pm
Andrew: the difference in carbon emissions per head between the USA and other Western countries is to a very large degree explained by private motor cars, not power stations or similar.
Jet: Scaling this down from the macro to the micro level, which would be worse for you personally – not seeing any improvement in your income for the next 100 years, or being underwater?
jet 11.12.04 at 3:00 pm
dsquared,
Given that the water would be at my ankles for most of my life, I’d probably prefer increased wealth to pay off the banker who loaned me the money to move inland. Because with Kyoto or without Kyoto, the water is going to keep rising. And I’d prefer it to rise a little faster and have the ability to pay for the consequences, than to rise margianlly slower and be starving to boot.
In 50 years when this is a real issue, most effected countries will be wealthy enough for it to not really matter. And those that aren’t wealthy enough, will be exposed to a much larger pool of wealth for those in need.
foo 11.12.04 at 3:30 pm
Relevant to the issue of Nordhaus and the DICE climate model: this article in Science about a month ago.
Perhaps one of the more relevant quotes:
“In short, taking an insurance approach to the near-term mitigation [of environmental effects of global warming] question strongly supports starting modest but persistent intervention on a global scale as soon as possible.”
paul 11.12.04 at 3:44 pm
I think Lomborg’s original assertion was that Kyoto will, at best, only delay the inevitable rise in sea levels by a few years. This leads to the reasonable question, “Is it worthwhile to go to all this expense for such a small return?”. Lomborg decided that the answer was “No”.
If there was a feasible method of enforcing a timely compensatory transfer, then perhaps we should abandon Kyoto and proceed along those lines. Jet misses the point, though, such a transfer would have to be agreed from the outset (i.e. now) as the effects of rising sea levels would be progressively experienced by the “losers” over the next 100 years and beyond. This transfer is really just emissions trading, which is part of Kyoto anyway, so we’re almost back where we started. And if the deal wasn’t agreed up front and binding to all parties, what would there be to stop countries weaselling out of it once the time came to cough up? I think it’s a bit naive to expect the additional wealth generated (if any) to magically transfer itself to all the injured parties in such a scenario.
All this may be irrelevant as I don’t agree with Jet that Kyoto will necessarily generate extra recessions for signatories. There are ways of reducing national emissions without losing economic competitiveness. Swap all SUVs for Smartcars, for example. Or start cycling. There may be an initial hit while we invest in new technologies or nuclear plants, for example, but the efficiency gains might eventually offset the investment. I’m not an economist, though, so I’m only speculating.
Lomborg raised an interesting point but unfortunately he has allowed himself to become a poster boy for anti-Kyoto parties with vested interests in maintaining high fossil fuel usage and I think his credibility is now very questionable.
Anthony 11.12.04 at 3:56 pm
The issue is not climate change, but the extent to which things like Kyoto will attenuate such changes. Kyoto will make a negligible difference in holding back climate change over the next 100 years.
So shouldn’t we be spending money on learning how to adapt to the change now, rather than wasting money and crippling our economies ability to help us adapt?
dsquared 11.12.04 at 4:04 pm
Paul raises an interesting question here; how can it possibly be the case that it would destroy the world economy for 100 years if Americans started buying European-style small diesel hatchbacks instead of the cars they currently favour? I seem to remember (possible bullshit alert) that this simple change would achieve a significant proportion of the USA’s Kyoto commitments.
stuart 11.12.04 at 4:17 pm
It’s funny how people can seriously suggest that being wasteful of energy is the only way to be economically prosperous. Consider that some countries have voluntarily met or bettered the targets of Kyoto so far. Are they bankrupt? in recession? or even a depression? No of course not, they are growing in size just like the countries that continue to expand the amount they waste.
Did Kyoto ever claim to be the entire answer to climate change anyway? Personally I thought it was intended as a small first step to get everyone on board, and ensure at least we didn’t get any worse than we were.
If you think Kyoto was going to cripple your economy, what is the fact there is only 27 years worth of known oil reserves left (ignoring growth in usage, and including a lot of ‘reserves’ that appeared when the OECD quota’s based on reserves came in), and every year less new oil is found (currently only 1 barrel found for each 4 or 5 used). Maybe you won’t consider it wasting money then to stop pumping out CO2 like there no tomorrow (all but literally).
Dan Hardie 11.12.04 at 4:52 pm
Further to dsquared’s point, as I understand it one big reason that fuel-inefficient cars are so popular in the US are that US fuel taxes are nowhere near European levels. And I see little prospect of that changing give the disproportionate Senate representation low-population-density, and thus high-car-use, rural states. Of course, a modest fuel tax increase- presented, with good reason, as a measure necessary to enhance national security- might well have been acceptable in the crisis atmostphere of September 2001. But we’ll never know now…
fyreflye 11.12.04 at 5:05 pm
Since it’s already too late to stop the warming process I must agree with Anthony. But isn’t it interesting that not only the US, but the governments of nations which accept the inevitability of large-scale climate change, are doing absolutely nothing to prepare for it?
Jake McGuire 11.12.04 at 5:06 pm
How would a fuel tax have increased national security? The reason we are dependent on middle eastern oil is that it is the cheapest oil to produce. Imposing a fuel tax will cut crude oil consumption and subsequently the price, thereby INCREASING the percentage of Middle Eastern oil that we consume. Unless, of course, we only imposed an import tariff on oil from the Middle East, which while it would probably violate WTO standards, would more importantly be (correctly) percieved as a direct attack on the lifestyle of upper-middle-class Saudis. You know, the ones who flew planes into the World Trade Center.
Fuel taxes are also a) hideously regressive and b) unpopular EVERYWHERE, not just in large western states.
fyreflye 11.12.04 at 5:09 pm
Since it’s already too late to stop the warming process I must agree with Anthony. But isn’t it interesting that not only the US, but the governments of nations which accept the inevitability of large-scale climate change, are doing absolutely nothing to prepare for it?
Chris Bertram 11.12.04 at 5:28 pm
On Paul’s comment above:
I see no good reason to believe that those who gain from trading carbon emissions would be the same people who would get a compensatory transfer under a just scheme. Nor do I see any reason to believe that the amount paid from country X to country Y under an emissions trading regime would be anything like the amount payable under a scheme of just compensation.
I’d add that whether an enforceable system of compensatory payments is feasible is an entirely different question from whether a compensatory payment is owed in justice.
Dan Hardie 11.12.04 at 5:30 pm
More fallacies than I can shake a stick at, I’m afraid.
‘The reason we are dependent on middle eastern oil is that it is the cheapest oil to produce.’
The US isn’t ‘dependent’ on Middle East oil- most oil consumed by the US comes from the US itself or Venezuala, Canada and Mexico. According to a bunch of uninformed individuals called, er, the United States Federal Government Department of Energy: ‘The United States averaged total gross oil (crude and products) imports of an estimated 12.2 MMBD during 2003, representing around 62% of total U.S. oil demand. Over two-fifths of this oil came from OPEC nations, with Persian Gulf sources accounting for about one-fifth of total U.S. oil imports. Overall, the top suppliers of oil (crude and refined products) to the United States during 2003 were Canada (2.1 MMBD), Saudi Arabia (1.8 MMBD), Mexico (1.6 MMBD), and Venezuela (1.4 MMBD). ‘ (Source:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html)
‘Imposing a fuel tax will cut crude oil consumption and subsequently the price, thereby INCREASING the percentage of Middle Eastern oil that we consume.’
A US fuel tax will cut global consumption- if US demand for oil is price-elastic enough to respond to such a tax- but there are counterbalancing trends which work the other way, notably the industrialisation of and spread of car use in a small, obscure country called ‘China’, and another one called ‘India’. There’s an argument among oil economists and geologists about whether current high prices have anything to do with fears that we are finally looking at the end of major oil reserve discoveries. But I’m afraid there are no arguments at all about the fact that continued Indian and Chinese growth will push the demand for oil up. Prices are going to trend up anyway.
Joe O 11.12.04 at 5:51 pm
Lomborg’s point is that The Kyoto treaty will cause too much economic damage for the benefits and that there are more cost effective ways to help the third world. It is true that none of these cost effective ways to help the third world currently have any real chance being implemented.
jet 11.12.04 at 6:13 pm
dsqaured,
Chris makes my point that the damage to economies by Kyoto would far outweigh the cost done by global warming. The cost of Kyoto far outweighs the cost of global warming. Investments in sea walls, relocation and water management infastructure will be miniscule compared to caps on power production, oil usage and their resultant impact on economic growth.
And Bjorn makes a good case that even though as oil prices reach the point at which shale oil will become viable, solar power will become viable long before regular oil production is maxed and shale oil production starts.
An environmentalist with true vision wouldn’t waste a newton of energy fighting for CO2 caps and would only be concerned with government grants for solar power research. Not only is that a lot more palatable, it is the only long term solution besides nuclear.
Jack 11.12.04 at 7:09 pm
Jet, how do you know that the cost of caps on CO2 would be more expensive than rising sea levels? It’s a very bold statement and not I think uncontested so I think it deserves a little fleshing out.
dsquared, on US automotove fuel consumption the situation is not just the unusually low direct taxes on fuel but tax breaks for SUVs. Firstly they are exempt from California’s fuel consumption rules which force manufacturers to achieve a minimum average mileage across their sales which effectively taxes large cars but because of the exemption not SUVs. Secondly it is easier to get an SUV made tax deductible than it is a car so USians are actually tax incentivised to use gas guzzlers. I believe but cannot cite supporting evidence to show that the US is the only major market where average fuel consumption per mile has been rising not falling. I don’t think having to drive a European car is a major loss of utility although it might entail a loss of US comparative advantage.
Finally there is an intermediate space between achieving a global reduction in CO2 emissions and doing nothing. Kyoto was written in its eventual form in no small part to make it possible for the US to sign. It didn’t and nor has it made real alternative prposals. By the time it does it may be too late to curb demand in China and India and the real genie will be out of the bottle.
Michael Blowhard 11.12.04 at 7:10 pm
I do think y’all overdo the dumping-on-Lomborg thing a bit. Lomborg’s point was that even if you combine the most doomy figures for global warning and the most optimistic figures for the impact of Kyoto, the good effects will be neglibeable. At the cost of hundreds of billions, the flooding of some low-lying areas will be delayed for five years. Aren’t there better ways to put this money — or even some of it — to work? He points out that for a small fraction of the cost of Kyoto, good drinking water can be made available to everyone on earth, a change that’d save millions of lives.
This really isn’t a bad point to make, do you think?
FWIW, I saw Lomborg speak to a rightwing audience once, and he was anything but their marionette. He was clearly glad to have an audience (has the left given him much of a hearing?), but he was pretty relentless (and funny and witty) about goading and prodding the righties present, as well as about mocking Bush. Like it or not, agree with him or not, the guy’s an environmentalist. He’s also a provocateur — and what’s wrong with that?
luci phyrr 11.12.04 at 7:18 pm
“The costs will be incurred by the poor in places like India who will end up with their homes and workplaces under water”
But what is the net present value of these people? Does the whole population of, say, Bangladesh, earn enough in their lifetimes to make them worth the cost?
Seriously, I don’t follow the environmental arguments closely enough, but isn’t the warming risk to Bangladesh more from more frequent and intense monsoons washing people out to sea (which happens already) than from slowly rising water levels?
james 11.12.04 at 7:22 pm
If US support for the Kyoto treaty was critical, the treaty should have been modified to address the US issues.
alex 11.12.04 at 8:06 pm
Chris Bertram wrote “If the economist and policy-wonks who parrot the Lomborg line are proposing a massive compensatory transfer from the winners to the losers then I haven’t heard of it.”
Hmmm, have you read anything by Lomborg on global warming? This is exactly what he is constantly proposing.
For example, see here:
“…we should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more effectively in the developing world. This connection between resource use on global warmingand aiding the Third World actually goes much deeper, because the developing world will experienceby far the most damage from global warming. Thus, when we spend resources to mitigate globalwarming we are in fact and to a large extent helping future inhabitants in the developing world.However, if we spend the same money directly in the Third World we would be helping present inhabitants in the developing world, and through them also their descendants. “
Jack 11.12.04 at 8:22 pm
James,
It was and the US is big enough to make suggestions of its own and not just take the ball home.
Alex, Michael,
I believe there are two parts to the animus against Lomborg. I don’t think his analysis is universally accepted in its own right but secondly that his arguments are travestied by non-environmentalists into an excuse for doing nothing at all, neither Kyoto style head on things nor his alternative proposals. I think the second factor is unfair but not really wrong either. As joe o said there is no chance of his alternative reforms being implemented.
james 11.12.04 at 8:45 pm
Jack,
The US issues that where not addressed where the equal inclussion of all countries (specificly China and India) and a full emission trading policy. China and India are not under the same restrictions as say Italy.
Jack 11.12.04 at 9:24 pm
James,
That wasn’t in the gift of the signatories so I guess you are saying that it’s all the fault of India and China.
My complaint is that the alternative course has been to do nothing and the US is the biggest part of the problem.
Michael Blowhard 11.12.04 at 9:41 pm
Jack — I think you’re right about the two parts to the animus against Lomborg. I think there’s another part to it too, which is that Lomborg violated the environmentalist creed, and That’s Not Done. Should we boo Lomborg, though, for the use that’s been made of his work? (Isn’t that a bit like boo’ing Giotto for all the lousy representational art that’s made use of his innovations?) Better to both dicker over the validity (or nonvalidity) of his analyses, and continue pressing for reasonable-but-positive action, no?
Kevin Carson 11.12.04 at 10:40 pm
It’s not like the only alternatives are Kyoto or the present system.
The best way to reduce CO2 emissions is to stop subsidizing the consumption of energy and stop subsidizing transportation. It’s basic economics that when you subsidize the consumption of something, people use more of it.
And one of the central purposes of the US government is to “guarantee affordable, abundant, and safe energy for the American economy.” That, and to support the distribution costs of overcentralized corporations.
Corporations need to pay the full cost of the resources they consume. The government needs to stop guaranteeing access to cheap resources.
Giles 11.12.04 at 10:42 pm
surely the key point here is the assumption of increasing returns. If calcutta is flooded and veryone moves to Bombay then the net effect is that India becomes better off – because one city of 30 million has higher output than 2 of 15 million. (On the other hand if they move to the countyrside or smaller cities then India is worse off.)
So the case for “compensation” is by no means guaranteed – Global Warming might make India better off.
Walt Pohl 11.12.04 at 10:43 pm
The issue of Kyoto is a red herring. If the US was doing anything to limit carbon emissions, the fact that we didn’t ratify Kyoto would not be an issue. Not only is the US not trying to limit its carbon dioxide output, it is increasing it.
Robin Green 11.12.04 at 11:40 pm
we should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase
That’s correct. On the contrary, we should be spending vast amounts of time, money and effort, to cut a huge slice off the global temperature increase.
This whole thing that economic growth (as measured by the notoriously dubious GDP or GNP) is always and everywhere good is a fallacy. We should be measuring quality of life indicators, to get a holistic idea of the benefits and costs of policies.
Jack 11.12.04 at 11:56 pm
Michael,
It’s not fair if you can develop a subtle enough point of view but many people don’t. Many of his fans like him for the wrong reasons too.
I think you are right that there is some outrage purely at his apostasy.
jet 11.12.04 at 11:58 pm
This arguement will go on until 100 years from now when everyone who lives near the ocean swims to work. The only part of the arguement that each side immediately accepts as valid is that competitive alternative energy sources would solve the problem.
We need billions more invested in solar research, that is the tree you should be barking up.
Baylelle 11.13.04 at 1:21 am
If we let quills manage their own brioche-accounts, as the free marketers wish, then porcupine welfare as we know it will end.
ChrisS 11.13.04 at 3:01 am
Chris makes my point that the damage to economies by Kyoto would far outweigh the cost done by global warming.
Pretty bold statement considering we don’t even know the extent of global climate change. But I guess I should defer to your judgement, since you know how the markets will react and how the global weather system will react (including the global ecosystem) and that we should just invest in solar.
Easier said than done.
And the uproar from lot of scientists re: Lomborg, is that he misrepresents a lot of science in his polemic.
If rising sea levels were all we had to worry about, it would be an easier decision to make.
Andrew Boucher 11.13.04 at 4:25 am
How does Kyoto take into account the differing demographics of countries? Do the limits vary according to the number of people in the country, or are they fixed per country ?
Andrew Boucher 11.13.04 at 7:17 am
Maybe my question wasn’t clear… Suppose Kyoto has limits b and c for countries B and C. Population of country B is stable but that of country C goes up. Do b and c change?
bad Jim 11.13.04 at 8:57 am
We won’t run out of fossil fuels for generations. Apart from coal [it’s cool that the current administration thinks it’s fine to level the Appalachians, dumping the overhang into streambeds, poisoning the folks downriver, and thinks power plants deserve a pass on cleaning up their exhaust gas][it’s also wonderful that there’s plenty of coal in America, China and everywhere else] it turns out that oceanic methane hydrates may rival our ground-drilled gaseous methane resources.
Better yet, with the Arctic ice-free in the summer, our previously least-accessible resources can easily be shippped world-wide!
It’s a bummer that the thawing of the permafrost undermines the siting of drilling platforms and access roads. It may result in additional methane releases as well, which might accelerate the process of climate change. Nobody ever said that progress was free.
digamma 11.13.04 at 8:24 pm
Of course, a modest fuel tax increase- presented, with good reason, as a measure necessary to enhance national security- might well have been acceptable in the crisis atmostphere of September 2001. But we’ll never know now…
The Bush administration used that atmosphere to get the policies they had been hoping for all along. I think they were wrong to do so. And I like to think that even if I’d agreed with those policies, I’d still find taking advantage of the crisis atmosphere wrong.
Antoni Jaume 11.13.04 at 8:30 pm
“The US issues that where not addressed where the equal inclussion of all countries (specificly China and India) and a full emission trading policy. China and India are not under the same restrictions as say Italy.”
In other word, then, those who live at the limit of existence must decrease their consumption of necessary energy so that the people who mispend in a day as much energy most people use in a fortnight can keep doing so.
DSW
Jackmormon 11.13.04 at 10:06 pm
The fact is that we have no idea what climate change is going to bring. The sea rising is one of the more probable, and that’s the one we’re arguing about in costs and benefits here. But what I’m hearing from my friends who work in this area is that the effects will be extreme weather everywhere. “The storm of the century” will happen every five years, or “the longest drought since 1850” will happen every twenty years. Some rivers will flood; others will go dry. Maybe the gulf stream will shift, making Europe a heckuva a lot colder and less fertile.
The point is that we just don’t know what the effects will be, but that they’ll probably suck and will probably cost a lot of money to deal with.
At a basic level, a conversative should be very concerned about this: almost all scientists agree that human activities are having a real impact on global weather patterns, and the nature of that impact is difficult to predict. Shouldn’t a real conversative want to protect the future against possibly catastropic change?
Michael Blowhard 11.14.04 at 11:58 pm
Jackmormon — I’m with you on that. True conservatives should be very concerned.
But part of Lomborg’s point is that — according to most studies — climate change is coming anyway. (I doubt Lomborg is a “conservative,” by the way.) Preventing it from happening entirely isn’t an option. So the question becomes: what then do we do? What then can we do?
Another part of his argument is that Kyoto will at best — and using figures Lomborg didn’t come up with, but that the advocates of Kyoto came up with — postpone the inevitable by five years, over a span of about a century. In other words, at the cost of (if I remember right) $500 billion, we can, with luck, achieve this result: that the average temperature will have risen by 2 degrees not in 2100, but in 2105. A five year delay in the inevitable over the course of a century, achieved at immense cost. (I may be a little off in these figures, but but I don’t think I’m off by much.) Is that the best environmental use we can make of that $500 billion?
I dunno, I think it’s a pretty good question myself.
Ken Miles 11.15.04 at 6:50 am
The costs of Kyoto have come up a few times in this thread, so I should throw in my two cents.
A recent literature review (Barker and Ekins The Cost of Kyoto for the US Economy The Energy Journal 2004 page 53) of the costs for the US economy has found that the non-climate costs are “gradual and well designed… the net costs for the US of mitigation are likely to be insignificant, that is within the range +/-1% of GDP“.
paul 11.15.04 at 11:25 am
Andrew, as far as I know the Kyoto limits do not take population changes into account. Each developed country or “Annex I” signatory commits to keep total emissions at 1990 levels (with internal variations allowed within blocs such as the EU).
Chan MacVeagh 11.15.04 at 2:31 pm
The great problem with the Kyoto accords is niether the cost nor the small impact. It is an intellectual excercise that pretends to make 100 year predictions. That is impossible. Hubbert’s peak (maximum oil production) may not actually be today but even the most extreme anti-enviromentalist can not believe that we will continue to find enough oil to match the 100 year projections. Somewhere between 2030 (worst case) and 2070 (best case) will all stop burning oil because shortages will end the viability of “found oil” energy. How smoothly we make this transition is a political question but whether or not we make it can not be ini doubt.
paul 11.18.04 at 10:58 am
A correction to my earlier post: vehicle and aviation emissions are not included in the national Kyoto allowances. Therefore, although switching to more efficient cars will reduce CO2 emissions, it won’t help to meet the Kyoto objectives.
Comments on this entry are closed.