Costs and benefits of Kyoto

Here.

An excerpt:

Abstract: The main point of this article is to say a few words supporting the number 150 billion dollars a year for the Kyoto protocol (Nicholas Stern wants much more, about 400 billion dollars a year, 1% of GDP) for the expected negligible 0.07 Celsius degree decrease of temperature in the next 50 years, both used in the Kyoto counter in the sidebar.

A quote from this piece:

A climate simulation including the effect of the as yet unimplemented Kyoto Protocol, negotiated in 1997 and calling for a world-wide 5 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels, would reduce that increase approximately to 0.94°C - an insignificant 0.06°C averted temperature increase.

The piece includes this graph:


Speaking of Kyoto, note this 1997 quote by Al Gore:

We will not submit this [Kyoto Protocol] for ratification until there's meaningful participation by key developing nations.

Check out the video here.

Regarding U.S. energy use and carbon dioxide emissions, note this graph:



One excerpt from the link above:

As an interesting side note, the US per capita CO2 emissions, as show [above], have actually been flat to down since the early 1970’s. To the extent that Europe is doing better at CO2 reduction than the US, it may actually be more of an artifact of their declining populations vs. America’s continued growth.

Also note this excerpt from the link above:

By the way, the US is generally the great Satan in AGW circles because its per capita CO2 production is the highest in the world. But this is in part because our economic output per capita is close to the highest in the world. The US is about in the middle of the pack in efficiency, though behind many European countries which have much higher fuel taxes and heavier nuclear investments.