Hey guys.

Thanks for lots of comments. Just a few factual points.

$180 billion/year for the Kyoto Protocol will not bring us to the poorhouse, but it is 1.5% of US GDP ($11.5 trillion, http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls) or about 0.5% of OECD GDP. It is about 3 times the global development aid.

C Meyer says my numbers are probably just “convincing-sounding industry-thinktank-generated statistics.” Not a strong argument, but more importantly not so. The cost estimate comes from the average (not the most expensive, not the cheapest) of all macroeconomic models from (Weyant & Hill, 1999) from the Stanford Energy Forum. It is in line with the UN estimate of 0.2-2% GDP cost (actually the low end of 0.5%). This is peer reviewed and the best overall estimate.

That a permanent Kyoto postpones temperatures 5 years in 2100 likewise from peer-reviewed (Wigley, 1998). Wigley incidentally, was a lead author of the UN climate panel in 1996 and a respected climatologist. All models give about the same estimate.

Climatologist John Doe claims it is a fact that world population is increasing exponentially. Not so. Growth rates maxed out around 1960 (2.2%), actual numbers in 1990 (87m) and have been declining since then (now 1.1%, 73m, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html).

James Bowe points asks whether we really need to spray for mosquitoes. Well, until 1946 malaria was endemic in 36 states in the US. Only after the Second World War was Centers for Disease Control established with their first major task to combat malaria. (This is also why CDC headquarters lie in Atlanta, because most of the malaria disease was found in the Southeast.) From 1947-49 over 4.5 million American homes had been sprayed and in 1951 malaria was considered eradicated. Likewise if you live in the third world, where malaria still infects about 500 million and kills more than 1 million each year, you would probably prefer spraying, too

Randy Gill claims that we will not be richer in 100 years. That is fine to suggest but it is not in the UN Climate Panel scenarios. The *most* pessimistic expect the average person in the developing world to be above $20,000. Even in this very unlikely case, the average person in the third world will be as richer than a present-day Portuguese or Greek or richer than most West Europeans in 1980. Much more likely, he or she will be richer than today’s average American, Dane or Australian at about $100,000. This richness will of course enable these countries to better weather outside shocks, whether they come from climate change or the many other challenges the future undoubtedly will deal us. Remember, if you do not believe these scenarios (which most consider very including) it would also mean that CO2 emissions will be *dramatically* lower and consequently UN Climate Panel temperatures likewise dramatically lower.

Weyant, J. P., & Hill, J. N. (1999). Introduction and overview. The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. Energy Journal, Kyoto Special Issue, vii–xliv.
Wigley, T. M. L. (1998). The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and climate implications. Geophysical Research Letters, 25(13), 2285-2288.://000074700200010