Many global warming alarmists, like , for example, Andrew Brod say: the science of GW is complicated, it's very difficult to be absolutely sure about it, we'll never be; we can't wait to be sure, but, nevertheless we should act to reduce CO2 emissions as an insurance policy against possible catastrophe. He writes “there’s no scientific evidence that my house will catch on fire next week, but I think I’ll buy homeowner’s insurance anyway.”
Let's see if the insurance scenario applies:
First is the question of cost. One is willing to pay for insurance only a small price. You would be willing to pay an insurance premium of, say 2, 3, or 5 thousand dollars p/a but if the price is higher you'll renounce insurance and take your risks. Same with GW. It would maybe be reasonable to incur some small cost, but not a big one. Kyoto, for example, (if properly implemented, which can't be done) would be a big cost.
Second is the question of security of the compensation. You would not buy an insurance policy if you had any doubt about the ability or possibility of the insurance company to pay the policy sum when required. But with Kyoto there is no doubt at all: even if implemented as intended (impossible), it would contribute next to nothing toward reducing GW.
Andrew Bord, being a professor of economics, should know that the insurance analogy holds no water.