Amusing column in the Washington Post today. (And I mean “amusing” in a bitterly ironic sort of way).
The US has spent roughly $300 billion on the Iraq war, with the final figure estimated to be in the ballpark of $500 billion to $1 trillion. Implementing the Kyoto Protocol, on the other hand, is estimated to cost the US somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 – $350 billion (though those figures are speculative and, some would argue, inflated.)
By the way, the Kyoto Protocol was rejected by US lawmakers because it would harm the economy too much.
TJ
Kyoto was also rejected because of lobbying by the Global Climate Coalition, a consortium of oil producers and auto makers. Another aspect of Kyoto that needs to be changed is to call for reductions in emissions in both China and India, who are currently exempt from cutbacks.
Eric de Place
TJ, Kyoto is a seriously flawed instrument, no doubt about it. But seeing as how the US is—and has been—reponsible for a vastly disproporionate share of ghg emissions, it seems more than fair that the US adopt Kyoto’s mild standards, together with other developed countries. And apart from the fairness, the US occupies a very unique leadership role in world affairs. There’s little chance that China and India will agree to Kyoto if the US won’t.
eldan
I’m not sure the two price tags are really comparing like with like. The cost of the Iraq war is money spent by the government, most of which went to US based companies so it’s actually an artificial stimulus to the economy. The notional cost of Kyoto compliance, on the other hand, was supposed to be money that would not be generated by the economy because of the burden of complying with Kyoto.If we accept that Kyoto estimate, then it’s not fair to hold it up and compare the cost of the war with it, because one’s an amount of money distributed from the government to companies, whereas the other is an amount of money either not existing or distributed from US companies to foreign companies.Having said that, I think the Kyoto cost estimate is basically hokey, because it relies implicitly on the assumption that no-one will make any money out of the compliance industry, so there will only be costs and profits. I don’t have the expertise to take that analysis much further, but I’d love to see someone do it.
eldan
oops. In the penultimate sentence of my comment, I meant to write “…only be costs and no profits.”
Eric de Place
eldan, quite right: the price tags are not comparing like with like for just the reason you mention. Still, they’re rough markers for the scale of the endeavor. It would be interesting to know how much additional the Iraq War has cost in economic losses (not just the $300 million of tax dollars). How much for the value or lost (and impaired) life? How much from other economic disruptions caused by going to war? Conversely, it would be interesting to know what economic stimulus the government could generate by spending $300 on American businesses to meet Kyoto? Would there be big gains in efficiency; insulation from fuel prices; reduced harm from the externalities of fossil fuel use? Michael Northrup, for instance, has argued that ghg reductions actually boost the economy. See here: http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2005/02/28/for_economic_gr