I've been trying to find the source of the often cited claim (often by Bjorn Lomborg), it seems to be Lomborg himself.

From <a href="http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/news/Lomborg0204.html">here</a> we have:

"Among the many economists whose work supports Kyoto is Jeffrey Frankel, a member of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Clinton. Frankel is cited by Lomborg for his work on economic growth, but his work on climate change is ignored. According to the modelling reported by Frankel, the costs of Kyoto would be about 0.1 per cent of GDP for developed countries. This is far below the range of $150 billion to $350 billion (0.6 to 1.5 per cent of GDP) cited by Lomborg.

Frankel is not alone. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites a range of model estimates of the costs of implementing Kyoto using market mechanisms. They show that, with a global system of emission rights trading, the cost of implementing Kyoto would range from 0.1 per cent to 0.2 per cent of GDP.

Lomborg dismisses global emissions trading as politically infeasible because it would involve the redistribution of billions of dollars to developing countries (page 305). But then he turns around (page 318) and attacks alternative ways of implementing Kyoto by suggesting that the billions required could be better spent - by redistributing them to developing countries."

from <a href="http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=512">here</a> in 1999 we find that Janet Yellen, chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors:

"Yellen’s estimates that the cost of Kyoto will fall between $7 and $12 billion per year if the Annex I countries fully participate in an international emission trading system. The cost of a carbon permit representing 1 ton of carbon would only cost between $14 and $23. These estimates fall far below the estimates of other studies."


For Italy the cost of Kyoto is likely to be negative (a saving of 1.5B Euro a year) based on <a href="http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol6/iss1/resp11/">this study</a>.

"Based on an analysis of alternative scenarios for electricity generation in Italy, we show that if the costs in terms of damage to human health, material goods, agriculture, and the environment caused by greenhouse gas emissions are included in the balance, the economic argument against Kyoto is untenable. Most importantly, the argument holds true even if we exclude global external costs (those due to global warming), and account for local external costs only (such as those due to acidic precipitation and lung diseases resulting from air pollution)."



Strangely most of the available data on the cost of Kyoto come from Australia and the USA, both countries not taking part.

---

____________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.boincforum.info/boinc/">boinc forum</a> and <a href="http://www.uk4cp.co.uk/">United Kindom</a> team, my climate change <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/mike_atkinson/">blog</a>.

Having worked in many different capacities during the last 35 years as a Canadian - it is indeed ironic - but not entirely enexpected - that those whose ox is gored ( great American expression ) will useany argument to delay decisions on what other nations deem as fact.

Thus it takes a great dea;;pmger to develop forecast costs than anticipated.

These costs have an immediate impact in terms of health, the use of resources, and the list is end less.

---

christopher