The Kyoto Protocol was rejected on a bipartisan basis (the Senate voted 95-0 against, no Democratic senator supported ratification) because it would have cost the U.S. upwards of $300+ billion (bearing 50-80% of worldwide costs) while delivering near-zero monetized U.S. benefits—since the developing world was excluded and the existing stock of greenhouse gases unaffected—reducing anticipated 2100 warming by only about 0.03°C.

factualpending

Speaker

Cass Sunstein

Evidence Quote

we would have spent 325 billion in return for 12 billion and it's not mysterious on reflection why we would have gotten so little because the nations that were regulated ... were basically freezing their emissions around 1990 levels the existing stock of greenhouse gases would be affected not at all and the developing world ... wouldn't be controlled at all the the reduction in anticipated warming by 2100 was going to be very small according to one estimate 0.03 C

Source

Cass Sunstein on Worst-case Scenarios 11/19/2007EconTalk
Created: 6/15/2026, 9:17:23 AM

My Notes

Loading notes...