Thursday, December 29, 2011


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: <>

<x-charset iso-8859-1>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.

----- 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. --
> 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
> that list? If not, suggest you subscribe by sending a blank e-mail to
>, and a note to list manager John Norris at
> 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
> are mutually exclusive. Of course if we really want to help the
> 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
> the Kyoto Protocol, which in itself as inadequate." Yes it is inadequate
> 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
> 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


No comments:

Post a Comment