[MP-Ryan]

I haven't seen much real analysis on it, but oil does produce a lot less greenhouse gas than coal. More oil couldn't be that bad if it crowds out coal consumption.

Additionally, most of the world is under Kyoto. So emissions are pretty much capped regardless of the source.

Depends on the oil.  "Oil" is a huge range of hydrocarbons, and some burn cleaner than others.  It also requires varying degrees of refining depending on the source.  Coal is generally not a clean-burning fuel, although pulverized coal burns a lot cleaner than solid coal, and different types of coal are cleaner than others.  In basic terms, oil-derived fuels burn cleaner than coal-derived, but it isn't always the case.

As for Kyoto, three of the largest producers of carbon emission on the planet do not abide by its most stringent provisions, so the caps are essentially meaningless.  Until the US, China, and India sign on to meaningful measures, Kyoto isn't worth the paper its written on.

[samiam]

I wouldn't say meaningless. They haven't had much effect yet, but if all Annex I countries besides the US implement, it'll still lower temperatures a few fractions of a degree. A lot of other countries, like China, have their own domestic targets even if they haven't ratified the treaty.

I don't think the oil produced by offshore drilling is particularly heavy, although the Keystone XL pipeline is. But a lot of other oil sources involve burning off natural gas which evens things out. Overall I don't think there are many oil sources worse than bituminous coal, even most tar sands.

[MP-Ryan]

I wouldn't say meaningless. They haven't had much effect yet, but if all Annex I countries besides the US implement, it'll still lower temperatures a few fractions of a degree. A lot of other countries, like China, have their own domestic targets even if they haven't ratified the treaty.

The problem is in the implementation.  Until Kyoto meaningfully captures all major producers and provides for both penalties and incentives in compliance with the strategy, it isn't a worthwhile project.  China and India, in particular, should not get a break because their industrialization came later than other nations.  Either climate change is something everyone should address equally, or it isn't.  It makes no sense for ratified nations to economically-handicap themselves (reducing the funding available for R&D) while other won't or don't have to and charge ahead.  To throw some undoubtedly incorrect numbers out as an example:  if the US produces 17% of global carbon emissions, what sense does it make for a country like Canada to scale back their emissions, drive up the price of oil (thus making EVERYTHING more expensive), and cause economic havoc over the 2% it produces?  It defies logic.  The economic offset of non-equivalent adjustment around the world makes it more difficult to produce viable alternative technologies.

I misread your previous bit about oil versus coal as a question rather than a statement; you are correct that few hydrocarbons burn "dirtier" than coal.

Aside:  FYI, "tar sands" is a chemically-incorrect term.  Bitumen and heavy hydrocarbons contained in the Athabascan bituminous sands are not actually tar.  Oil sands is closer; bituminous sands is correct.  Nitpicky, but "tar sands" is a politically-loaded term designed to convey a political message that isn't scientifically correct =)

[samiam]

Well there are a whole lot more sophisticated analyses out there than what I can type out. But suffice it to say that even if the US does absolutely nothing about emissions, Kyoto loses about half its effectiveness. So that's still averting a lot of future climate damage.

None of this stuff is about countries acting in their present interests since the effects of global warming will fall long after everyone alive now is dead. The point is to prevent Africa and parts of Asia from getting devastated starting around the end of the century with drought and desertification, which probably won't starve people but will set back their development a lot. Warming actually hurts the developing world, China, and India much more than it does the Annex I countries, so the Chinese and so forth are the main beneficiaries of all this. They just aren't acting in their long term interests so Europe is taking the hit for them.

Canada was undertaking emissions reductions until a few years ago and it remained one of the fastest growing developed countries. So we're talking about a slight slowdown here, not economic havoc as you put it. I agree that there are some rapid emissions cutting proposals out there that aren't that bright, but the Kyoto conditions are pretty moderate and gradual.

I'd also expect Kyoto to put more research into renewables if anything, since there's no incentive in researching these things unless you're trying to cut emissions.