It's Gettin Hot in Here

When evaluating an environmental policy or protocol like the one set up in Kyoto there are three main ideas to focus on. These ideas are efficiency, cost effectiveness, and fairness. By focusing on efficiency I mean matching the marginal damages of an certain problem, global warming is this case, to the marginal abatement costs of preventing the problem. The major problem facing the Kyoto protocol is the actual determination of the costs involved with increasing global temperatures. Some estimates place these costs “including effects on property values, insurance rates, food and water supplies -- would be in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, according to the United Nations and other organizations.” With these numbers actions taken by the protocol would be easily justified. But as always, these number are being debated. Do you think that the costs involved in cutting back greenhouse emissions worldwide match the possible damages to be imposed? Use the three above mentioned keys to decide.