The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on July 26th, 2017 at 12:27 pm
Economist John Quiggin once wrote frequently about Kyoto. Here he is on May 21, and May 7 (“once again, it’s evident that, unless we ratify Kyoto now, we are in danger of missing the boat”), April 29, April 19 (in which he rejects “claims Kyoto will be economically ruinous”), April 18, April 17, February 23, February 16 (noting that ratification was “a good day for the planet”), February 8 (“The wheels are coming off Bjorn Lomborg’s attempt to undermine the Kyoto Protocol”), January 28, January 26 (“Judging by Australia’s failure to ratify Kyoto, we’re not making the right collective choices at the moment”), January 21, January 2, December 21, December 15, December 7, November 6, October 23, October 4, October 1 (“Promises by Bush and Howard to produce an alternative, more effective policy have come to nothing”), August 22, June 7, June 6, May 27, May 24, May 23 (“It’s Kyoto or nothing, and I certainly hope it will be Kyoto”), April 2, and—we’re now back to 2003—December 3 (“my guess is that, whatever their merits, the governments that have rejected Kyoto will continue with business as usual. But I’d be happy to be surprised”), November 7, November 2, October 9, October 1 (“Lomborg is a hypocrite and a fraud. It’s as simple as that”), September 30 (“consistency is not a major issue for Lomborg or for his right-wing employers”), September 18, September 15, September 14, and September 9—which included this:
Given that I’ve been posting on both Kyoto and admissions of error I thought it would be interesting to check if any of the leading contrarians on climate change had revised their views in the light of recent evidence. On past form, I wasn’t expecting much.
The leading contrarians and their organizations (SEPP, Marshall Institute, Cato) cut their teeth in the debate over the ozone layer. Most of them are pretty quiet about this issue now.
We might later return to this matter of people becoming quiet about certain issues. Quiggin remained loud on September 8, August 8, June 24, May 27, March 8 (“the economic argument on Kyoto has largely been won”), March 4 (“the economic costs of implementing Kyoto are quite small”), February 12, January 10—now we’re waaaaay back in 2002—December 22, December 11 (“Good news … New Zealand has ratified Kyoto”), December 4, November 26, November 25, November 18, November 15, November 14 (“how do we get the claim that Kyoto would be too expensive?”), November 13, November 12, November 5, October 19, September 24 (“The economists statement in support of the Kyoto Protocol, which i helped to organise got nearly 300 signatures”), September 23, September 19, September 16, September 15, September 6, September 5, September 3, August 31, August 21, August 19, August 15, and August 14.
UPDATE. Quiggin finally addresses New Zealand’s Kyoto woes:
As far as I can tell, this is a beat-up. The government had calculated that under existing policies, New Zealand would meet its Kyoto commitments with a bit left over that could be traded on international carbon emission credits markets. Now it looks as if they won’t, which means either changing the policies, buying credits or repudiating the commitments. Its hard to see how the availability of the second option makes NZ any worse off.