I (Magnus) got some links from you on the real climate blog, I asked about the long-term effects off implementing the Kyoto protocol. But what I really want to know is how the economic scientists look at restrictions to stop the GW. Is it economically sound in the long term (I realise that this is impossible to answer but what do they say?)?

I’m an environmental scientist (chemistry) myself so that part of GW is not a problem for me to discuss. But the economics I know little about… and when discussing GW in public it has its favours… how are the economics gathered? What do the models predict?

http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2005/mr28jul205.html

“India can’t commit to Kyoto targets-U.N. Head”
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/DEL47295.htm

“… India will be unable to commit to greenhouse gas emission targets when the first phase of the Kyoto treaty ends in 2012 as its energy-hungry economy is developing fast, the top U.N. climate expert said on Thursday. Under the Kyoto climate change protocol which came into force in February, developed countries will try to reduce greenhouse gas output by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels by 2008-12. But developing countries such as India and China are exempt from the treaty’s emission targets because they say their economies will take a serious hit if they change their energy policies.”

If Kyoto means that developing countries do not have to change their energy policies, as stated in the article, then it seems to me difficult to argue that the Kyoto process is meaningful (other than symbolically, and do symbols matter) in developing countries.

As he was quoted, “We are not historically responsible for this problem. So the first steps have to be taken by those who are historically responsible — the developed countries.” In UNFCCC practice, this has meant that developed countries should agree to take on binding targets and timetables, and is how the Kyoto Protocol dealt with the question of historic emissions.

Nothing in the statement that indicates that he “believes that there is no path forward for developing countries under Kyoto.” The Protocol does strike a crude but arguably workable compromise in allowing developing countries at least one period of nonbinding commitments. Nothing in the FCCC process dictates that this situation must continue; successor protocols could include any number of equitable (or quasi-equitable) approaches.

Pachauri’s subsequent defense of Kyoto thus seems consistent. However, the wider and more important concern about the head of IPCC pontificating about the desirability of the APP vis-a-vis the FCCC process is certainly valid.

1. Yes, India has formally signed the Protocol. R. Pachauri says that there is no way that India will participate in its approach. Of course, he does not speak for the Indian government, but I think it is safe to say that if India does not participate in the Kyoto process then it has rejected it, even with its formal ratification.

2. The reference to “some” is not to me but follows from the link I provided, citing an IISD report: “Harald Dovland, Norwegian Ministry of the Environment … expressed concern over the number of [FCCC] SBSTA members attending IPCC meetings, noted the risk of politicizing the IPCC …”

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3284