Update on climate

actually standard temerature estimates are 1.5 to 5.8 C for temperature projections for 2100.
So lets say
No action 1.5-5.8 (depending on assumptions) by 2100
Kyoto - I could not find much on this possibly 1.43-5.55
(using a .15 deg change to the mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol)
and my solution - somthing like 0.4-1.5
Any disputes regarding these numbers?

I have seen arguments such as this which argue that the economic costs of cutting oil usage are too great.
http://www.brueschke.org/~clovis/article.php?story=2003031914151957&mode=print
there is however one flaw here and that regards the nature of the losses. If oil is to run out soon then slowing usage now actually REDUCES the cost because it smooths the transition. This setting 2100 as a target causes peopel like the above author to push out the costs beyond 2100 as if that makes them cease to exist - rather similar to the way the supporters of kyoto push out the effects of burning the residual amount of oil beyond that point (I refer hee to the fact that under kyoto we will STILL burn all the oil it will jsut take a little longer).

So lets say it costs us 37 trillion till 2100 to reduce the emissions to a reasonable level. and lets say that is close to the point at which oil runs out in the normal scenario (not unreasonable). In that case the above author's "world" will suffer a catostrophic loss in the decade 2100-2110 (a total loss a major energy supply) while the other world will still have oil reserves to maintain a functioning economy.

So this is rather like Kyoto itself - they both effectively move the chairs on the deck of the titanic by pushing out or pulling closer the time that we run out of oil and the rise in temperature by a few years.