a_unique_person said:
But you are making predictions for the future. How do you know Kyoto will make things worse.
For that matter, given that the earth is warming, what do the economic models predict for the cost of the warming that is happening, even if there is no anthopogenic reason for it.
Kyoto prescribes amounts of emissions to be reduced. One can reduce emissions by using some other source of energy than fossil fuels altogheter, or by using some sort of filters (I presume, since I do not hold any degrees in industrial chemistry or engineering). Now there is a market for the equipment used to reduce emissions (filters etc) and there is a market for energy sources. That is why we KNOW MONETARY PRICES (in $ or any other freely convertible currency) for equipment and energy. We calculate the MONETARY COST of compliance, per producer, by adding up the market prices paid for other sources of energy than fossil fuels, and/or for filtering technology.
Philosophical problems dealing with predicting the future and accuracy of models have as much bearing on calculating monetary costs of compliance with Kyoto, as they have on calculating the family budget for mall visits.
Does that mean that Kyoto will make things WORSE? Obviously not. It only means that it will increase production costs for producers, which will cause an increase in monetary prices of consumption goods (as long as economic laws are not false). Now, when you're qualifying that situation as being bad or good, you're stating a judgement of value. Personally, I think it will suck. But I am sure that some people will enjoy it.
Leaping to your next paragraph, if somebody ever tries to sell you an "economic model that can predict monetary costs of global warming", be advised: he may be dishonest. Even if you would have such a model (it does not exist; it would have to take into account too many things we know too little about, such as the monetary effect of specific phenomena on each kind of bussines) you'd still need the entry data (which is the phenomenon that will occur, its intensity, the place where it will occur, the classification and number of businesses at the time of every occurence, their location etc).
The point is this: it's easy to calculate how much money it will cost to buy certain things you know you need according to the Kyoto protocol (energy mainly) at known prices. It's impossible to calculate how much money will be spend to move unknown production facilities from certain areas you don't know to other areas you don't know, to move unknown transport facilities from unknown locations to unknown locations and what that will do to transportation costs and how all this will influence prices of unknown goods; it's equally impossible to calculate how much money will be SAVED as a result of lowering transportation costs due to the availability of new transport routes, lowering energy prices as a result of availability of new resources etc
To resume: we can calculate the monetary costs of Kyoto compliance; we can not do the same with the "costs" of global warming (or, better said, "monetary effects").
On the other hand, if you were talking about "costs" that are not measured in money, what measurement unit would you use in order to "calculate" them? How would you measure the primary costs?
PS: These may seem common sense stuff you can learn by selectively reading replies to a forum thread. You can't.
Unfortunately, such concepts as cost, price, measurement, economic models and their testability are commonly misunderstood even amongst economists, and the reason for that is ignorance of economics itself and of basic notions from the philosophy of science. My advice to you is: use the time you spend here for learning (from books, I mean). Come back when you have covered the basics, if you really want to learn. If you question something before trying HARD to understand it, you are not a skeptic, but merely immature. This applies to everything you have said about costs, models and predictions.
