On March 28, 2006, a conference was held where four speakers tried to explain the various perspectives on why Kyoto is a serious problem for human beings and barely fit to solve anything.

 

If we try to see Kyoto as a solution, it isn’t clear what the problem is. The scientific community cannot seem to agree about whether or not global warming exists. And relatively few believe, if it does exist, that the main cause behind it is human activity. Scientists cannot even agree on whether or not such warming would be good or bad. This is why supporters of the Kyoto Protocol justify it based on the horrible Precaution Principle; in other words, impose the protocol “just in case.”  

 

Even if someone demonstrates we are facing a dangerous process of global warming, Kyoto wouldn’t be the solution. The Protocol is capable of reducing economic growth and stopping the division of labor and knowledge that bring about constant, new innovations. What it would do is raise unemployment and cause an international redistribution of wealth in favor of those countries that negotiated the best deal. It would force artificial outsourcing and de-localization of companies, doing severe damage to entire societies, and benefiting only a select, privileged few. It is a motor of inefficient injustice. The Kyoto Protocol is a factory of immense social costs, especially hard on the world’s poor. No matter how they camouflage it, this cannot be good for man’s environment.

 

Environmental Minister Narbona denied Spain’s involvement in this socio-economic nonsense would be costly. Now, emitting 40 percent more green house gases than in 1990 and with the price of emission rights sky high, the Minister has had to admit it is nearly impossible for Spain to comply with the Protocol because the cost to our economy is going to be huge. But not all is lost. She also claimed the government will work to contain the economic cost. Ah, what a relief!

 

But opening the state’s interventionist arms to nuclear energy, the only cheap source that does not emit CO2? Not a word. Our politicians don’t like these types of solutions to the hypothetical problem of global warming. Could it be because they don’t require politicians to meddle in the free exercise of individual freedoms? Maybe. What is clear is that what Tocino, Matas and Narbona consider the solution is, for all of us, a serious problem.