Comments on: AP Bookends the Year by Repeating a Kyoto Myth http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/12/ap-bookends-the-year-by-repeating-a-kyoto-myth/ The Business End of the Blogosphere Fri, 8 Aug 2008 19:20:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: ChinaCoalWatcher http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/12/ap-bookends-the-year-by-repeating-a-kyoto-myth/#comment-118928 ChinaCoalWatcher Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:36:40 +0000 http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/12/ap-bookends-the-year-by-repeating-a-kyoto-myth/#comment-118928 It's worse than that - it has been known since June that China surpassed the US emissions rate *in early 2006*. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency took into account China's massive cement production, which releases huge amount of CO2 by the decarbonization of limestone to make the clinker. Presently, they already emit 20% more CO2 than the US does and that's with US emissions themselves being about 20% greater than 1990 levels. The correct anticipation of this set of facts underlay the motivation of the signatories of the "Sense of the Senate" resolution. In short, the question is about costs and benefits. Even if the most aggressive approach proposed at Bali were adopted (which is not likely), without developing-world requirements the overall change in atmospheric concentrations by 2030 would maybe be as much as 2% lower, yielding a temperature improvement of perhaps 0.1 degree F - probably not enough to make a measurable difference in our welfare. It’s worse than that - it has been known since June that China surpassed the US emissions rate *in early 2006*. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency took into account China’s massive cement production, which releases huge amount of CO2 by the decarbonization of limestone to make the clinker.

Presently, they already emit 20% more CO2 than the US does and that’s with US emissions themselves being about 20% greater than 1990 levels. The correct anticipation of this set of facts underlay the motivation of the signatories of the “Sense of the Senate” resolution.

In short, the question is about costs and benefits. Even if the most aggressive approach proposed at Bali were adopted (which is not likely), without developing-world requirements the overall change in atmospheric concentrations by 2030 would maybe be as much as 2% lower, yielding a temperature improvement of perhaps 0.1 degree F - probably not enough to make a measurable difference in our welfare.

]]>