http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5190 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5190&cpage=1#comment-13781 Sean_Wise Wed, 06 May 2009 13:01:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5190#comment-13781 I am quite amazed that he "benefits" to the UK are the "avoidance of damages in the future of climate change". It is a very odd turn of events that the costs estimates will likely be quite real, painful and certain if the UK plan is fully implemented while the benefits will be nothing more than a pie in the sky guess and wholely unverifyable. He also presumes that the rest of the world will follow suit, something that the China and India have made clear they are not willing to do. (They have more important problems of poverty, disease and the like that need to be tackled first.) In fact, didn't the last preparatory meeting for the Copenhagen summit dissolve in dissarray with the third world saying they have a right to increase emmisions to the same as the west (on a per capita basis) and as long as the west did to get their economies on a sound economic footing? If the third world maintains this position (and I think they have every right to) Copenhagen in December will not be the beginning of a global CO2 mitigation strategy, it will be its climactic end. I am quite amazed that he “benefits” to the UK are the “avoidance of damages in the future of climate change”. It is a very odd turn of events that the costs estimates will likely be quite real, painful and certain if the UK plan is fully implemented while the benefits will be nothing more than a pie in the sky guess and wholely unverifyable. He also presumes that the rest of the world will follow suit, something that the China and India have made clear they are not willing to do. (They have more important problems of poverty, disease and the like that need to be tackled first.) In fact, didn’t the last preparatory meeting for the Copenhagen summit dissolve in dissarray with the third world saying they have a right to increase emmisions to the same as the west (on a per capita basis) and as long as the west did to get their economies on a sound economic footing? If the third world maintains this position (and I think they have every right to) Copenhagen in December will not be the beginning of a global CO2 mitigation strategy, it will be its climactic end.

]]>