The Kyoto protocol is a simplistic approach to an interesting issue facing today's world: CO2 bad, so stop generating it. It is a bad idea, as Mark Steyn recently describes. His final assessment:
So, faced with a degree rise in temperature, we could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people. Or we could do what man does best: adapt. You do the math.
I have long followed Mark's reasoning myself, and wondered why Kyoto is the only response given any political play. Is there anyone who takes this problem seriously?
Arnold Kling takes on a second step from here and tries to consider a more appropriate response. He suggests we focus on a possible bad surprise:
The troublesome possibility is that the models are not pessimistic enough. In fact, Weitzman would argue, and I concur, that the case for doing something today about global warming rests on the fear of the scenario of accelerated near-term climate change -- increases in temperature at a rate that is on the high end of the range being forecast by climate models.
The Kyoto approach does nothing to address the concern of a surprisingly bad change in the environment. To address such a change, we will need to react quickly, not to decrease this or that by 3% over the next 10 years.
Is anyone looking into the questions Kling raises here? Or is it all just politics and a feel-good movement?