date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:40:23 +0100 from: "Laure Ledoux" subject: Re: [ngp-list] Report in 'The Times' that Kyoto treaty is 'a waste to: Dear all, Apologies for the message sent earlier in French. It wasn't meant for the whole list, but as an environmental economist I do agree with Rob's note of caution about assumptions behind this kind of study. Laure. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rob Tinch To: Peter H. Reeve ; Rob Tinch ; Ingo ; ; Jennifer Reeve ; Dominic Reeve ; Christopher John Reeve Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [ngp-list] Report in 'The Times' that Kyoto treaty is 'a waste of money' > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for this. A few comments: > > (1) I don't think you should send mails directly to Mike Woodin etc. -- it's > too selective. Your mail would be better placed on the GP discussion list > (GP-L) where many more people (including Mike etc.) could see it Are you on > that list? If not, suggest you subscribe by sending a blank e-mail to > gp-l-subscribe@eGroups.com, and a note to list manager John Norris at > greenlists@headweb.co.uk stating who you are and that you are a GP member > (so that he will approve your subscription request). > > (2) "The findings are based on a four-year audit of a massive set of > official environmental indicators by Dr. Lomberg, associate professor of > statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, who is also an > environmentalist and a former member of Greenpeace." I heard him on the > radio last night and I fear this press report is presenting his work in a > slightly skewed light. I've not seen the report, but Sir Crispin Tickell > was interviewed afterwards and threw some serious doubt on his cost > estimates. We'd need to look at, inter alia, what discounting assumptions > he's used and how he's dealt with income inequalities before making an > assessment. > > (3) "he is critical of the treaty because independent scientific models > suggest that it will have little impact on the scale of global warming and > offers very poor value for money." He was indeed, but he did not suggest > that action is not required. He suggested we'd be better off investing in > sanitation etc. if we really want to help developing countries. There's > certainly something in that, but it would be a mistake to think that the two > are mutually exclusive. Of course if we really want to help the developing > world, the two most important steps are (1) cancelling debts and (2) > reigning in the multinationals and reforming the WTO. > > > (4) "I regard this as sensible, radical thinking. I think we are hooked on > the Kyoto Protocol, which in itself as inadequate." Yes it is inadequate in > itself, but as a first step towards serious action isn't it better than > nothing? I agree with you that this report should be taken seriously, but I > do regard the timing as suspicious (the eve of Bush's visit to Europe?), > find myself wondering who the funders for this 4-year study were, and feel > we must not be distracted from criticising the Bush administration's > abdication of its global responsibilities. We need to get hold of the > report and study it in depth before we consider shifting our stance. > > Cheers, > > Rob >