Argument: The Kyoto Protocol entails serious economic costs for signatories
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Andrei Illarionov, Putin's economic minister - "The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact, however strange it may sound, because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol's requirements."
- "We are close to a consensus that the Kyoto Protocol does huge economic, political, social and ecological damage to the Russian Federation. In addition, it certainly violates the rights and freedoms of Russian citizens, and well as the rights and freedoms of citizens in those countries which signed and ratified it."
Tony Blair said in 2005 at the Economic Forum in Davos, "If we were to put forward a solution to climate change something that would involve drastic cuts in economic growth or standards of living, it would not matter how justified it was, it would simply not be agreed to."
Leslie Evans. "Kyoto Protocol Said to Harm Effort to Stop Global Warming--But There Is Something Better". UCLA International Institute. May 25, 2007 - 4. The Kyoto Protocol does not do much to reduce the costs of combating climate change. "One estimate is that it will take $550 trillion dollars minimum and perhaps twice that as a maximum."
There are no mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol to make this cheaper. "The trading system was advocated by the Clinton administration and the Europeans rejected it. When Bush pulled out, the Europeans agreed to accept the credit trades. There is very mixed evidence that trading systems are an effective way to achieve goals."
Alan Keyes. "Why regulating CO2 would be a disaster." Heartland Institute. 1 May 2001 - There is no way to restrict CO2 emissions without making electricity less available and more expensive--exactly the opposite of what is needed in today's precarious economic climate.
President Bush said in 2001, "harm our economy and hurt our workers."