Kyoto kills growth, says Putin chief economist

[Island Dog]

Kyoto kills growth, says Putin chief economist By Philip Hopkins December 9, 2004

Addressing the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, Andrei Illarionov claimed the overwhelming opinion among Russian scientists was that global warming was nonsense. Photo: James Davies

Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will dramatically cut economic growth, Andrei Illarionov, the chief economic adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, said in Melbourne yesterday.

Dr Illarionov said the overwhelming opinion among Russian scientists was that global warming was nonsense, but political considerations had impelled Russia to sign Kyoto.

Under Kyoto, Russia would become a buyer, not a seller, of carbon credits by 2010, and would have to reduce greenhouse emissions by 3.5 per cent a year.

Dr Illarionov's remarks came in an address to the Institute of Public Affairs that was a calculated assault on the economics and science of global warming and the Kyoto treaty.

Dr Illarionov said Kyoto would harm economic growth because growth required the use of energy. This energy came overwhelmingly from hydrocarbons, which produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

Dr Illarionov said that in 1971, hydrocarbons supplied 86.1 per cent of energy needs. By 2001, this had declined by 6 percentage points to 79.1 per cent.

However, hydrocarbons would remain the world's main source of energy supply. "The lion's share of energy will still come from hydrocarbons," he said. "Mandatory restrictions in CO2 are incompatible with economic growth."

Advertisement AdvertisementDr Illarionov said nuclear power, which is greenhouse-free, was the biggest competitor. Over the same 30-year period, the proportion of nuclear power-supplied energy had risen from 0.5 per cent to 6.7 per cent.

But with the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island in the US and at Chernobyl, no new nuclear power stations had been built in Europe since 1986, although many in the nuclear industry now backed Kyoto for commercial reasons, he said.

Restrictions in CO2 emissions would particularly discriminate against low and middle-income economies. Based on trends of the past 50 years, world gross domestic product per capita would rise from $US8000 ($A10,330) in 2004 to $US36,000 ($A46,500) in 2050. But with Kyoto, this figure would be no more than $US11,000, he said.

It was a lie that most countries backed Kyoto, 85 per cent had not adopted the protocol. ANDREI ILLARIONOVDr Illarionov said it was a lie that most countries backed Kyoto. In fact, 85 per cent of countries - 178 out of 210 - had not adopted the protocol.

These countries represented 70 per cent of global CO2 emissions, 66 per cent of world gross domestic product and 87 per cent of world population.

Dr Illarionov's address also contained a detailed rebuttal of the science of global warming and associated accusations that greenhouse gases were damaging biodiversity and causing more natural disasters.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/Kyo...2182359957.html

[n3wt]

Oh noes, teh economy.

I hear death kills growth to, well except for hair growth.

the overwhelming opinion among Russian scientists was that global warming was nonsense

hehe

[Island Dog]

Yeah, who cares about the economy as long people "think" something is being done.

[n3wt]

I still haven't heard one valid argument for not signing the accord, if it means nothing, what is to fear?

[Island Dog]

This whole article is about Kyotos effect on the economy. If it means nothing, why sign it anyways.

[n3wt]

If it means nothing, why sign it anyways.

That should really end with a question mark, and your catchin on.

A country would sign for 1 of 2 reasons.

1. They actually care.

2. They need to look like they actually care.

Either way, people who sign for reason 2, are still helping those who sign for reason 1.

[Island Dog]

2. They need to look like they actually care.

Either way, people who sign for reason 2, are still helping those who sign for reason 1.

That is absolutely the wrong reason to sign a treaty. You are actually going to sign something that can possible damage the economy in your country, just to make someone think you care?

It looks like the Russians did just that. They think global warming is a false, and it will hurt their economy, but let's appease the europeans and sign something anyways.

Makes sense.

:rolleyes:

[Island Dog]

Andrei Illarionov: Protocol is just lots of hot air

December 09, 2004

ACCORDING to the Kyoto protocol proponents, Australia and the US are the rogue nations. But in the eyes of the absolute majority of the world, they are reasonable and smart.

After all, Australia and the US -- along with nine developed countries and 167 other nations -- are refusing to undertake legal obligations in restricting their greenhouse gas emissions.

The fact is the Kyoto protocol that will be a global treaty within months is based on fraudulent science. Assertions that global temperatures are higher today than any time in the past are completely false. Fluctuations in climate patterns have existed for millions of years -- for all earth history.

Global temperatures were higher in the Roman times when grapes were grown on British islands and Hannibal's elephants walked through the Alps into Italy. They were higher in the medieval period when the Vikings found and colonised the island that they have called Greenland and when Norwegians grew grain on the fields that are 300m in altitude higher than it is possible to do today.

Temperature variations in the course of the earth's history have been much greater than the increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the last century. In the past, the earth's climate was warmer, the global temperature rose faster, sea level was higher, floods were more severe, droughts lasted longer and hurricanes were more devastating than they were in the 20th century. Moreover, the best available temperature data from satellites show negligible temperature changes over the past several decades.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/commo...55E7583,00.html

[DaBeeeenster]

It looks like the Russians did just that.  They think global warming is a false, and it will hurt their economy, but let's appease the europeans and sign something anyways.

Makes sense.

:rolleyes:

585065452[/snapback]

Where on earth did you pull that little gem from?

[Island Dog]

Dr Illarionov said the overwhelming opinion among Russian scientists was that global warming was nonsense, but political considerations had impelled Russia to sign Kyoto.

Who else would they be trying to please?

[Osiris]

lol yeah this guys a real economist, any moron could tell it will temporary cut growth.

Seldom is there any environmental reform that doesnt affect growth.

Personally ill accept the temporary loss of growth if it means generations of a more sustainable global environment. Not to mention this one fact.

There is considerable debate as to whether global warming is man made or a natural occurance, and debate over whether Kyoto would do anything to affect this for the better. BUT isnt it worth taking a risk, and taking a shorterm hit to economic growth in the interest of the POSSIBILITY of reducing global warming.

I mean are we so caught up in the business cycle that we must value short-term loss so highly above the welfare of the planet. Now im no hippie by any stretch of the imagination, but damn it, if global warming is man made, then you cant put a price of any global measure seeking redress to correct it.

[hyperactive]

lol yeah this guys a real economist, any moron could tell it will temporary cut growth.

Seldom is there any environmental reform that doesnt affect growth.

Personally ill accept the temporary loss of growth if it means generations of a more sustainable global environment.  Not to mention this one fact.

There is considerable debate as to whether global warming is man made or a natural occurance, and debate over whether Kyoto would do anything to affect this for the better.  BUT isnt it worth taking a risk, and taking a shorterm hit to economic growth in the interest of the POSSIBILITY of reducing global warming.

I mean are we so caught up in the business cycle that we must value short-term loss so highly above the welfare of the planet.  Now im no hippie by any stretch of the imagination, but damn it, if global warming is man made, then you cant put a price of any global measure seeking redress to correct it.

585107879[/snapback]

Exactly. We should aim for a net zero impact economy. Take the hit now and reform the system. We can't go on destroying the environment just because it won't effect us in the immediate future. People have to stop being so short sighted.

[threetonesun]

You realize Russia's idea of economy is very different from ours, right?

I agree with one point though, this could be solved much more quickly by adopting nuclear, solar, and wind power. Between the three you'd probably only need a few nuclear reactors to power a good portion of the country.

[Osiris]

Yeah I realise Russias Economy is alot different from ours and most other nations still, but the point they are saying is the same tune as other govenments, such as the US and even Australia cry, and thats just its too expensive and wont fix anything.

I just feel especially since Australia and America are the last major opposition, well America, but Australias there too, that the rest of the world can see the benefits, why are we still toeing the corporate line.

[threetonesun]

Yeah I realise Russias Economy is alot different from ours and most other nations still, but the point they are saying is the same tune as other govenments, such as the US and even Australia cry, and thats just its too expensive and wont fix anything.

585107944[/snapback]

My bad, no quotes. That was to the original poster. My point was saying it would hurt Russia's economy really has little to do with how it may/may not hurt our economy.

[JK1150]

Oh noes, teh economy.

I hear death kills growth to, well except for hair growth.

hehe

585065376[/snapback]

actually, although hair appears to grow, it is just the skin tightening, which causes the hair and nails to appear to grow.

[Black Hawk]

actually, although hair appears to grow, it is just the skin tightening, which causes the hair and nails to appear to grow.

585107964[/snapback]

Watch too much CSI :rofl:

[neowin_hipster]

Global warming aside, the polution is still dangerous and is killing tons of people. Asthma is on the rise and other respiratory illness are up drastically as well.

Besides, look at who gets all the oil money anyways... The biggest problem is that people and countries in power owe a lot to oil... and this article is from russia which sports the big caucasus oil fields.

[leedogg]

I still haven't heard one valid argument for not signing the accord, if it means nothing, what is to fear?

585065400[/snapback]

In brazil, in accordance with Kyoto, they started using ethanol from cane sugar to run cars. Being cheaper and producing less waste, this industry has grown incredibly.

The net result?

Farmers in Brazil are razing forests for sugar cane fields. Sugar cane is notorious for depleting soil nutrients so not only does this lead to increased soil erosion, but they replace forests which are better co2 recyclers, the irony of this is that the net effect might end up being worse for the environment.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

In brazil, in accordance with Kyoto, they started using ethanol from cane sugar to run cars.  Being cheaper and producing less waste, this industry has grown incredibly.

The net result?

Farmers in Brazil are razing forests for sugar cane fields.  Sugar cane is notorious for depleting soil nutrients so not only does this lead to increased soil erosion, but they replace forests which are better co2 recyclers, the irony of this is that the net effect might end up being worse for the environment.

585108468[/snapback]

Oh please, that is a massive oversimplification! :rolleyes: Brazil has been on a path of cutting down forests (including rainforests) for decades now. You can make ethanol from many crops including cane sugar but it is by no means limited to cane sugar.