An alternative to many pseudoscientific approaches to addressing global needs is the Copenhagen Consensus which seeks to suggest spending priorities for major global development projects according to their return on investment. Note their focus on health issues like AIDS and Malaria rather than Global Warming. They see warming as problematic but too difficult and expensive to fix. I’d like to see advocates for Kyoto protocol compare the costs with alternative approaches, but they seem to avoid this approach. I’d argue this approach is a moral imperative. Spending limited resources in the wisest way should be of primary importance to us as we seek to address global problems.
“The problem with Kyoto-type emission reduction plans is that the marginal costs rise exponentially and the benefits, if there even are any, rise linearly. So no matter which angle you look at it carbon dioxide restrictions on even a modest scale use up more social resources than any benefits they generate.”
University of Guelph in Ontario