eisendorn,

i wonder what brings you to equate kyoto implementation with economic failure. i heard of studies indicating the exact opposite. i am no economist, but it sounds reasonable to me that implementing advanced emission reduction technologies and, in the end, alternative energy sources, would create jobs and know-how in the first place, and this is what kyoto aims to foster.

Massive interventions in economic activity are generally associated with failure because 1) economic theory predicts such occurances, and 2) historical evidence tends to support the theory.

Kyoto was implemented before global warming was even demonstrated to be a problem, a number of countries were exempted from the restrictions of the treaty, and certain forms of carbon emissions and carbon emissions reduction (eg, burning rain forests and carbon sequestration) are ignored.

Ultimately, Kyoto is a poorly conceived hack, and it won’t matter much to global emissions since in a decade or two the big contributors will either be countries (like the US) that refused to sign the treaty, countries that were exempt from it, or countries that ratified the treaty and later violated its provisions (the UK and Germany in particular look likely to be in this boat IMHO).

As far as I can tell, your claim is that we’re stuck in an inefficient system due to the cost of switching over to alternate energy infrastructure. Europe appears to be going the alternate energy route. If this truly makes their economy more efficient, then the US can do a massive switch later.

I think Kyoto would make more sense if it were explicit in its requirement for reduced emission technologies and alternate energy sources, rather than simply making reduced emissions the goal. I merely point out that economic catastrophe appears to be one effective way of becoming Kyoto-compliant, and that’s unfortunate.

As for Americans and their big cars — well, it’s certainly true in my neighborhood. I think there’s a perception that a bigger vehicle is safer, plus there’s more room for your stuff, your kids, their stuff, their friends’ stuff, etc. I drive a V6 Jeep which is not terribly fuel-efficient, but not an out-and-out gass guzzler, either. I like the the fact that it sits up pretty high and I like the way it handles snow and ice. I hope we’ll see bigger hybrids soon, which will support some of these kinds of features but also provide for some real fuel savings.

I think raising fuel prices to cut consumption is a bad idea — a fuel price hike is inflationary. If you raise the price of fuel, your raise the price of everything else, since everything else is raised on farms that depend on tractors, built in factories that require heavy machinery, or delivered by trucks.

EP –

Well, I think if Bush had been serious about it then, that’s what he would have done. He has tuned up the rhetoric on changing the energy infrastructure of late. It remains to be seen whether he will follow up with actions. His past record may be discouraging, but it is not (necessarily) determinative.

Right after 9/11.

He’s not serious; this is another example of him saying one thing and doing another.  We will not get a change of direction as long as this bunch of oil men run Washington.

i wonder what brings you to equate kyoto implementation with economic failure. i heard of studies indicating the exact opposite. i am no economist, but it sounds reasonable to me that implementing advanced emission reduction technologies and, in the end, alternative energy sources, would create jobs and know-how in the first place, and this is what kyoto aims to foster.

i name this example, naive fallacy and all: if you could get he major part of the us populace to drive cars swallowing 5l or less per 100 km (as most people in europe do), you could increase gasoline prices to balance the scale again. instead, most people needlessly drive heavy, fuel-intensive cars (that’s what i read, i excuse if it’s another prejudice), and gasoline prices are ridicously low compared to europe. this has a heavy toll on emission rate i am sure.

Kardashev listed three types of civilizations:

A Type I civilization uses all energy available from a single planet.

A Type II civilization uses all energy available from a single star.

And a Type III civilization uses all energy available within a single galaxy.

Whether or not civilizations this advance are feasible, I think it’s a good point that as a civilization advances it uses more energy, not less. We’d like to be clean and leave a smaller footprint on the environment, and do more with less. But for our civilization to advance, energy use must increase.

We can’t expect to continue increasing energy consumption with just petroleum. At some point we will run out (or, to be more accurate, oil will get too expensive to be practical). Civilization will either crash, or we will have moved on to another form of power.

I believe that we will make the leap. I join Phil in hoping that Bush is being serious. The earlier and harder this is pushed, the less painful the transition.