For quite a few years now, some pretty smart people have been floating an answer to the thorny problem of how to get both the developed and the developing world to agree on a path to carbon emissions reductions. I have resisted supporting it because it's so bloody simple it seemed like I was missing something. But Gwynne Dyer just reminded me of the idea, and I have to admit, there is no alternative. We have to do this:
Every person on the planet gets the same emissions quota. Simple as that. We figure out how many tonnes of CO2 (and equivalent gases) the planet can tolerate without sending us into danger territory, divide it by the current global population, and Bob's your uncle.
Dyer, proving yet again why he is one of the best journalists writing on global affairs, concludes:
In the end, we are going to have the same per capita emissions quota no matter where we live: Americans who currently put twenty tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, Germans who now emit ten tonnes per capita, and Indians who only produce one tonne at present.
The compromise figure will be around two or three tonnes per capita for every country, and the rich countries will have to struggle very hard to get their emissions down while the developing countries will still have some room to grow. No other global deal is conceivable. So the rich countries might as well sign a new Kyoto and get on with cutting their emissions; they have a long way to go.
This means cutting our First-World emissions by 80 to 90 percent, while the poorer folks get to increase theirs. Sounds unfair, except that it isn't. It's actually the only fair way to go about allocating emissions. Eventually, when everyone reaches the target, we can even tighten further, altogether, just to be safe.
I have no idea how difficult it will be to sell this plan to American and European governments. But I also strongly suspect that if the developed world agrees to it, the developing world will have no qualms about signing on, even if it does mean limiting their industrial growth below previous targets. There will be no other moral high ground, and no other workable option, left.
- Log in to post comments
"I have no idea how difficult it will be to sell this plan to American and European governments."
I do: Impossible.
At least until it can be done with absolutely no change in perceived standard of living, and that means the ability to drive whatever, wherever and whenever we want to; the ability to air condition a house or any other building to whatever temperature we want to; and, most important, the ability to make money easily without having to think about anything new. If you recall, Ronald Reagan won the presidency partially on the basis of attacking Jimmy Carter's energy conservation and alternative energy positions.
Please do your home work before these duped folks cost you your economies.
My point in all of this is that CO2 does NOT cause climate change; I am not arguing that a change in the climate might be occurring. The climate on earth changes all the time and that global change is caused by the Sun (a new NASA finding). All life on the planet is carbon based, CO2 is part of our food chain, and it is not a pollutant. The biggest green house gas is water vapor. If climate change is caused by human activity then we would need to start eliminating life on the planet, yes this is absurd, so is the assertion that humans are causing climate change. It just is NOT the truth.
Additional information http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html
The only problem is that sparsely populated countries would remain pristine while densely populated countries would go down the crapper. Perhaps this could be solved by establishing a market for emissions credits.
Dr Coles should be told that an idiot is posting comments and using his name.
A good suggestion, although one could make an argument that some people, depending on where they live, would have an inherent "need" to produce more emissions.
But the economist in me can't help adding that I can't see any environmental or social justice costs to allowing trading of these quotas. Not a new idea, I know, but is there any reason you haven't mentioned it here, favourably or otherwise?
I agree with Mark P....America/Europe will never go for that. And even if they did go for it in principle, cutting emissions by 80-90% is incredibly daunting as an operational matter.
Of course, this doesn't mean we can't shoot for that with the hope that the actual result, although much less, is still a significant reduction.
As for this comment by Dr Coles:
"If climate change is caused by human activity then we would need to start eliminating life on the planet, yes this is absurd, so is the assertion that humans are causing climate change. It just is NOT the truth."
Trying to follow the logic in this statement hurts my head.
Again, how about taking immigration seriously for a change. Third World immigration is the only reason there is substantial growth in First World countries. Achieving a decline in population in First World countries should be a goal of any serious environmentalist. That is never going to happen if we continue to allow significant immigration.
Another goal should be to achieve a fuel solution that relies on recycling CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't know how much credibility this project from Spain has, but something along these lines looks like a worthy candidate for substantial government investment.
And just what exactly about America do you think will go along with some idea of equal distribution of resources amongst the worlds people? Even if we were only dealing with America, this is not a country that thinks "every one should have the same amount of x". We are so opposed to anything resembling socialist thinking, that we'd rather watch the whole ship go down in flames than have to *share*.
The Yanks & (maybe) the Canucks won't bite. Probably the Euros will go for it, but in the end it won't matter. The change won't come soon enough. Perhaps once we run out of oil, the growth in CO2 will taper off, but by then it will be too late.
Don't get me wrong, I love Dyer tons + tons, but this is la-la land. American babies will continue to suck their thumbs and throw tantrums until they fall into civil war. Good thing they have enough guns.
And just what exactly about America do you think will go along with some idea of equal distribution of resources amongst the worlds people? Even if we were only dealing with America, this is not a country that thinks "every one should have the same amount of x". We are so opposed to anything resembling socialist thinking, that we'd rather watch the whole ship go down in flames than have to *share*.
An equal distribution of resources here and abroad regardless of individual merit or national achievement? Your thinking doesn't resemble socialism. It is socialism.
Besides, I'm not sure the Soviet system proved so great for the environment anyway.
Again, I think a reduction in population, most especially in First World countries, along with the development of appropriate technologies is the way forward.
Dr Coles is 100% correct. If the earth is getting warmer then the connection to Carbon Dioxide emissions is tenuous (at least). Before swallowing the theory that CO2 CAUSES "global warming" uncritically, there are several points to consider. Such as.....
A) The earth was considerably warmer about 1000 years ago than now. Why was this? Come up with whatever answer you like and at least give a nanoseconds thought to the possibility that this "factor" (when the CO2 emissions explanation was not in existence) is still at work
B)The earth is believed to have had an atmosphere composed mostly of CO2 about 4.4 Billion years ago, and to have had an atmospheric temperature of around 70 Degrees Celsius (ie 160 fahrenheit). the earth cooled down. How is this possible, using the "CO2 = runaway unstoppable warming" model. Try thinking a little, before answering.
C) As "progressive" people, not easily fooled by charlatans out to line their own pockets, why should we be so unsceptical of a group of activists who are making an absolute fortune via
grants/contributions/funding/bookwriting/film-making" etc, on this topic? Shouldn't we examine THEIR financial motives in the same way as we would do with "Big Oil", the Neocons etc? And...
D) Even if there IS general consensus among scientists (there is not) this will not prove the truth of any theory IN ITSELF. There should be at least "some" detailed prediction which is unambiguously proved to be correct, before we nod in agreement. At least from the days of Galileo, political/religious/quasi religious motives have driven various "consensii" which were patently incorrect. It is very early days yet in this debate, so let's be a bit circumspect. Cheers
PS. As for the idea that it is wise to take out insurance by cutting CO2 "just in case".. maybe. But, taking the analogy further, is it "wise" to pay a $200,000 premium to protect a $100,000 house?
punter57
Save us the agony. Just check off your items on the list.
Recognizing Negative Psychomarketing Campaigns
__________________________________________________________
Some hallmarks of the fingerprint of an organized, professional, negative psychomarketing campaign. These campaigns are usually partially, or completely, covert:
.
⢠focus on "character" of messenger/opponent in a way that allows dismissal of the message/argument
⢠confusion about actual facts at issue
⢠repetitious "talking points" or criticism, easily and repeatedly addressed, that continually resurrect
⢠proponents' certainty of data, often erroneous, that positions are based on
⢠focus on rhetorical argumentation, especially noticeable when new, reliable facts are introduced into larger discussion
⢠difficulty of getting adherents to discuss data/facts and admit error
⢠poor contextual reference, distinguishing personal/organized difficult, even with good data
⢠sublimation of energy into repetitive debate/discussion structures that produce no results
⢠focus on narrow part of data/issue relative to full amount available [where applicable]
⢠obsession with such narrowness to exclusion of readily available overview of issue
⢠focus off issues of decision-making methodology under obviously time-constrained conditions
⢠through time, new arguments/talking points materialize and rapidly spread [information contagion?]
⢠details and rhetorical argumentation distract pattern-recognition from larger contexts, campaign's existence
⢠kernels of truth in otherwise incorrect but widely held views [Tough to differentiate from everyday juicy stories. Journalists constantly chase these, only to find no story.]
⢠belief opposition succeeds via conspiratorial means, to varying degrees
⢠part of power and/or financial competition between parties on a larger sociopolitical level
⢠patterns/profiles/"scripts" of campaigns discernible, even strategies, with enough data
.
None of these signs individually, or even several, are demonstrative, of course, and can arise from other causes. One would want to review a wide array of data, such as mass media, to begin to come to a conclusion about the existence of specific campaigns. I note these signs because the existence of these negative- or anti-PR campaigns and the tools for analyzing them are not widely known. These might be considered part of a robust media literacy, something sorely lacking in the U.S.
___________________________
I came to post a long piece about socialist salmon. After punter57's affliction, I'm going to reconsider. The above is accumulating. This is it's third post.
This happens randomly. Bullets show fine in the preview, but bomb out in the post. Sorry. They look so much better than asterisks.
I just can't resist this.
Having throughout my adult life known many very smart, creative people who were voluntarily following their interests, aptitudes, or callings and squeezing together a modest, at best, economic life via grants, funding, and even book writing, this statement is both hilarious and dumbfounding at the same time. I'm impressed. Achievement duly noted.
Punter57, who clearly knows absolutely nothing about the realities of "grants and funding" ends up claiming the marginal economics involved are on a par with Exxon. I'm not going to check, but memory says it's been in the top 10 most profitable companies ON THE PLANET for a number of years. This is stupidity on a startling level.
I've used this word once online and that was in a parody. But moron is, well, an understatement actually.
But there's hope. Whether punter57 is a professionally manufactured persona [one hopes] or an actual person, if this is the quality of script reader the skeptics campaign is now attracting, give them all the rope they want. Just the attrition of bodies piling up will clog their media output channels