Positive externalities
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
1. The "guilt" question - How solid is the case for "climate debt" for
past emissions? Should this debt be repaid to innocent developing
countries suffering from "our" past and present emissions sins?
2. Clean technology development financing
It is often argued that developing countries will suffer most and have
contributed little to past emissions. We have benefited from past
emissions, they will suffer, so we should reimburse them.
This is quite a sensible argument. However, I think the positive
externalities are all too easily forgotten. If Europe and the US had
never burnt any coal, there would be less CO2 in the atmosphere, but
there would also be no vaccines, no mobile phones, no photovoltaics,
no modern wind turbines, no batteries.
The availability of these technologies is, has been and will continue
to be a huge boon to the development of poorer nations, all of which
have higher living standards today than a 100 years ago.
I would argue that huge transfers to developing countries are the
right thing to do, because so much more good can be done there than in
Europe or the US; not because of a need to atone for past sins.
---------------------------
Technology development can lead to huge external benefits. Sometimes,
via patents or through first mover advantages, the developer can be
fairly rewarded with the right incentives provided.
But, when it's hard to capture a reasonable share of the benefits,
private investors will not cough up any cash.
That's of course the reason for feed-in tariffs of 40 cents per kWh
for PV. It's also why no private investor will sink money into CO2
mineralisation technology. Or why it's so hard to get private money
for fighting malaria or improving African crop yields.
Now I like the CDM as conceived. It can be much cheaper to reduce
emissions in developing countries, and why not do that for 1 Euro per
tonne, and then not reduce in developed countries for 10 Euros per
tonne. It's development aid combined with cost reduction. In theory at
least.
I am wondering whether we should in a similar manner reward clean
technology development spending. Already with CDM there are questions
about additionality (would the country do it anyway? or worse would it
otherwise have speeded up regulatory action?) and measurement against
base line.
Of necessity, this is even harder for technology spending. Say, if
Germany or Spain choose to spend 10 billion Euros on feed-in tariffs,
how much is that going to reduce emissions over the long term in the
rest of the world?
I would propose to deal with this through a cost cap. Beyond a certain
level, say 25 Euros per tonne (reviewed every year), governments can
sell unlimited emissions allowances and use the proceeds for clean
technology funding. Alternatively, if there are no emissions allowance
markets and just hard caps for individual countries, the country could
be allowed to meet some of its target by counting clean development
spending at 25 Euros per tonne.
Alastair
are using it as a euphemism for "theft". The oil we have burnt will
not be returned. We have "stolen" it not just from the developing
countries but also our children and our grandchildren. We have flown
around the world holidaying in exotic places, but in thirty years
there will be no cheap oil left making flying expensive and only
possible for the very rich as it was in the 1930's.
Moreover, with the Amazon and South East Asian forests gone, there
will be no land left to develope to provide the food for the booming
world population. There is a finite amount of cheap oil and a finite
surface to the earth. Without an end to population growth we are
doomed.
Morality is a subjective idea, just as is guilt. You have explained
beautifully why you believe that you deserve to keep the wealth you
have acquired, arguing that the technical progress is due to you. What
technical achievements have you personally contributed to society?
None that benefit poor rice farmers in Bangladesh I bet. Yet your
justification for a much higher standard of living is based on what a
few people whom you have not even met have done in the past. That
seems like an invidious use of reflected glory.
OTOH, look at it from the Chinese farmer's POV. He has toiled seven
days a week in his paddy field, working far harder and longer than you
ever did. Surely he is entitled to the same rewards as you, if not
more? Certainly, he would see it that you have had your share of the
world's oil. If you decided to blow it on SUVs, Water Skiing, driving
to the hypermarket, and central heating of rooms you hardly enter,
then that was your mistake.
How do we reconcile those two viewpoints? Well just look at what is
happening in Copenhagen to see how difficult it is.
Cheers, Alastair.
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
> beautifully why you believe that you deserve to keep the wealth you
> have acquired, arguing that the technical progress is due to you.
I would like political realities to be different, and think they will
eventually be different. But, at the moment, developed country
citizens have a clear revealed preference for their taxes to go
towards social justice in their own countries.
You might argue that "guilt" is an effective strategy to get them to
do what is right, but I am not convinced, because I don't think
developed nations have done net harm to the developing world, and
especially not the kind of net harm that would justify reparations.
I find it much better to make a positive case, not one grounded in
"sin".
James Annan
wrote:
> This is quite a sensible argument. However, I think the positive
> externalities are all too easily forgotten. If Europe and the US had
> never burnt any coal, there would be less CO2 in the atmosphere, but
> there would also be no vaccines, no mobile phones, no photovoltaics,
> no modern wind turbines, no batteries.
>
> The availability of these technologies is, has been and will continue
> to be a huge boon to the development of poorer nations, all of which
> have higher living standards today than a 100 years ago.
I think I heard it said quite recently that the standard of living in
Somalia is about where it was 5000 years ago (sorry can't remember
where).
James
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
> Somalia is about where it was 5000 years ago (sorry can't remember
> where).
It's a bit glib to talk about living standards being higher than a
hundred years ago in some sub Saharan nations and Afghanistan, I
know.
My personal opinion is that even for those countries it is likely that
standard of life indicators such as life expectancy or murder rates
are better today than 100 years or thousands of years ago. But, well,
Somalia is in civil war and the accuracy of present day statistics and
the few indicators we've got of the past is questionable.
Clearly, much of sub Saharan Africa in particular is doing awfully
poorly due to Aids, corruption, war compared with countries like say
South Korea, Singapore or even India.
Nevertheless, there are vaccines, mobile phones, radio's and a whole
load other technologies being applied in Sub-Saharan Africa, which
make a great difference. It's not as if the only way past Western
emissions impacted Africa was via climate change and the technological
developments coming with the emissions had meant nothing positive or
would be inconsequential for the future of these nations.
Alastair
On Dec 20, 7:08 pm, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> I find it much better to make a positive case, not one grounded in
> "sin".
I am not trying to make an emotional case based on guilt and sin. I am
trying to look at this matter rationally.
The western world are not going to feel guilty, and the developing
world is not going to feel grateful, so where do we go from here? If
we don't act, then catastrophe is inevitable. We will keep pumping out
CO2, from the oil sands if need be, until it becomes obvious that we
gone too far. So long as we westerners insit on maintaining our
standard of living, then the developing world will want the same
standard.
The UK minister Millibrand blamed the Chinese for the Copenhagen
debacle, but the US was trying to buy its way out of the problem,
while making a derisory cut back in emissions. It seems clear to me
that the Chinese will not agree to limit their growth unless the US
makes serious cuts. That seems unlikely unless the Chinese agree to
limit their growth. We are in an impasse, and trying to justify one
side of that argument is not constructive.
The only answer is for us to reduce our profligate life style to that
which would be sustainable world wide, and allow the developing world
to rise to that standard. But we wont do that because we think that
our standard of living is our right. It is our emotional reasoning,
based on greed, and portrayed as a positive case, which will be the
death of us all.
Cheers, Alastair.
Don Libby
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <global...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:48 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 3314] Re: Positive externalities
On Dec 20, 7:08 pm, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>> I find it much better to make a positive case, not one grounded in
>> "sin".
>The only answer is for us to reduce our profligate life style to that
>which would be sustainable world wide, and allow the developing world
>to rise to that standard.
This is a particularly narrow-minded and highly judgemental opinion, and not
rational - it does not even admit any of the possibilities for reduced
emissions with high and rising global standards of living that have been
devised as the IPCC emissions scenarios for stabilization.
It is not rational for us to reduce our standard of living in the strict
sense of rationality being to act in one's own self-interest - the "ratio"
of rationality being the ratio of benefit to cost. There is not one "only"
answer, there are several, which are rational, and they involve the
construction of thousands of new nuclear reactors, as in A1T, or B1. The
international questions that matter are who will build reactors, who will
finance their construction, who will receive emissions credits from them,
and who will prosper from the sale of electricity.
*Re-post*
IPCC SRES Emissions Scenarios - Version 1.1
World - A1T AIM
Primary Energy 2000 2100
Nuclear 11 EJ 112 EJ
http://www.unep.no/climate/ipcc/emission/data/allscen.htm
Currently the world is building about 150 new coal-fired power base-load
power plants per year. If we build 80 new nuclear plants per year we'd
reach a stable global inventory of about 4,000 plants in about 50 years, 10
times higher than today's roughly 400 plants world-wide.
A1T and B1 are two scenarios that stabilize atmospheric CO2 concentrations
by 2100.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm
Good solstice, many happy returns of the season, and a glorious new year to
all.
-dl
Kooiti MASUDA
> There is not one "only"
> answer, there are several, which are rational, and they involve the
> construction of thousands of new nuclear reactors, as in A1T, or B1. The
> international questions that matter are who will build reactors, who will
> finance their construction, who will receive emissions credits from them,
> and who will prosper from the sale of electricity.
And who will control radioactive matter,
long after people get benefit from it.
This is primarily a problem of sequestration, I think, so
it is basically similar to that of carbon sequestration.
Radioactive waste is quantitatively much smaller than CO2,
but qualitatively different.
Another concern is that nuclear fuel can be used for
military or terrorist purposes.
We do not want to give that technology to broken governments,
even if the people (including civil servants) have good will.
They must have capacity to control their merchants or militia
not to contribute to terrorists or unknown outsiders.
We do not want to give that technology to totalitarian regimes,
which may be able to control the technology, until their people
make upheavals. Even if the revolutionaries have good will,
they are likely to disrupt the stringent control of nuclear matter
(It should have been a symbolic part of the despotic regime).
So the part of the world where we can safely install
nuclear technology is very limited.
Maybe, such nuclear fuel cycle that cannot yield
nuclear bomb matter can help. (Thorium cycle? I am not sure).
If you promote nuclear power, please explicitly promote such
technology.
Ko-1 M. (Kooiti Masuda)
From the county which got nuclear-bombed (though I do not usually say
this)
Alastair
criterion. Moreover, it is three times as expensive as oil per kW
hour, so we would have to reduce our standard of living by nearly 70%
if we switch to nuclear. It is no silver bullet :-(
Cheers, Alastair.
Don Libby
Subject: [Global Change: 3317] Re: Positive externalities
>On Dec 22, 12:57 pm, "Don Libby" <dli...@tds.net> wrote:
>> There is not one "only"
>> answer, there are several, which are rational, and they involve the
>> construction of thousands of new nuclear reactors, as in A1T, or B1.
>And who will control radioactive matter,
>long after people get benefit from it.
...
>Another concern is that nuclear fuel can be used for
>military or terrorist purposes.
...
>So the part of the world where we can safely install
>nuclear technology is very limited.
...
>Maybe, such nuclear fuel cycle that cannot yield
>nuclear bomb matter can help. (Thorium cycle? I am not sure).
...
>Ko-1 M. (Kooiti Masuda)
>From the county which got nuclear-bombed (though I do not usually say
>this)
Yes you raise many good points, and I agree that great caution must be
exercised to reduce these dangers.
In my opinion, long term disposal of nuclear residues can be managed by
isolating it from the biosphere in the lithosphere or deep ocean floor.
Fuel cycle facilities -- especially enrichment facilities -- are strongly
regulated and should continue to be strongly regulated.
The part of the world where nuclear power plants already operate includes
India and China, where most of the new plants should be built. India is
actively researching the Thorium fuel cycle.
Yes the historical tragedy suffered by Japan gives us all reason to treat
this technology with great respect. It is remarkable that Japan has since
become a world leader in the development of nuclear power engineering
technology, and will continue to do so, I am sure: Toshiba owns
Westinghouse.
Thank you,
-dl
Nick Santos
Yet with this consideration, we'd need to see how much of the population boom is "our" responsibility, etc and the accounting goes on and on and I think this becomes a very tricky argument. When is something good considered a credit and when is something bad considered a demerit? Does it require that we merely develop a technology or that we also help them build it out? Should we get credit for telecommunications when they served to send us so far ahead of the non-industrialized world and probably allowed as much or more exploitation as aid? I'd say that in addition to having done most of the damage, we have also been largely responsible for many of the conditions that have kept nations in poverty historically.
However, my argument might miss the point. Should we be doing a more accurate accounting of the "liability" of industrialized nations for upcoming damage? I'd say yes - we should, where feasible attempt to incorporate this, but linking it to climate aid will again be hard. I feel that there are certainly credible arguments to both the net-good and net-damage arguments of the industrial->non-industrial relationship, but I'm inclined to believe the net damage argument and also to believe that our emissions are on track to give them significantly more damage - possibly even more instability that prevents them from adopting our technology. It might even be an apples and oranges comparison where our positive externalities are going to do very little to prevent or mitigate our negative ones.
Anyway, given the near-impossibility of an accurate accounting of the positive externalities, the developed world really ought to own up to our emissions. It's easy to say that the negative externalities will have similar uncertainties to the positive, but I'd say it's easier to account for cause and effect when you're looking to it in the future than in the past.
Sorry to have such a rambling response - I guess the long and short of what I'm saying is that I think your argument has merit, but it would need a very strong broad-based framework for what is good and bad, who gets credit, and when - and I don't know that we can get that.
-Nick
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
Don Libby
>Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
>To: global...@googlegroups.com
>Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 5:58 PM
>Subject: Re: [Global Change: 3322] Re: Positive externalities
>
>We'd need a good metric to measure this by.
Somalia. War lord's minions drive around in pick-up trucks, or zoom around
in motor-boats, powered by gasoline, with .30 or .50 caliber mounted
'sheen-guns for their own enrichment by the power of deprivation under fire:
improvement or not, over say, camels and scimitars? On the plus side,
Somali dissedents and intellectuals can either jet out, or go on the
internet to say "get me outta here!"
-dl
Alastair
On Dec 25, 11:58 pm, Nick Santos <ultraa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back to the question at hand, I'm not convinced that the developing world's
> standard of living is higher due to modern technology that they have access
> to.
The "elephant in the room" or to put it more explicitly the real
problem is over-population. If the population of the world was 650
million, and not 6,500 million, then there would be no problem with
global warming. The global emissions of CO2 would be reduced to a
tenth of their current values and this is the level that scientists
claim is neccessary to prevent "dangerous global warming". But the
reason for the booming population is the scientific advances achieved
by the Western World!
And it is not just the developing world that are benefiting from those
changes. Life expectancy is rising in the developed world too, and
populations there are rising. In a few years time, over 10% of the UK
population will be aged 70 and above.
But the main reason that the standard of living is rising, as opposed
to population, is because of "cheap" oil. We no longer have to produce
goods by the sweat of our brows. True, in the past we, and especially
American cowboys, used horse power for transport, but even then there
were rickshaws and sedan chairs. Now everyone has their own automobile
or at least, in some parts of south east Asia, a motor bike. When
that oil runs out then fuel, derived from coal, is going to be more
expensive and everyone poorer. When the coal runs out - disaster.
cars fueled by hydrogen, produced with nuclear energy, will be a
fleeting fancy. Then we will be in trouble. When the standard of
living drops world wide, nations will go to war over the scarce
resources. Iraq was only the beginning :-(
We can already see that the US is no longer the problem. Agreed, if
they refuse to give up their SUVs we are doomed. But now it seems that
China wants to expand the number of its SUV owners. Just as over the
last ten years the US has increased its carbon use by an amount equal
to the total use of carbon in the UK, so if China cannot be persuaded
otherwise, it will increase its use of fossil fuels by an amount equal
to the total fossil fuel use of the USA!
Think about it.
Cheers, Alastair.
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
> boom is "our" responsibility, etc and the accounting goes on and on and I
> think this becomes a very tricky argument. When is something good considered
> a credit and when is something bad considered a demerit?
Trying to work out how large "reparations" for past emissions should
be is quite hard. I think it poisons the debate to ask the US or
Europe for reparations of past climate sins.
I think we should look at the here and now, and the greater
possibilities and wealth that Europe and the US have at their
disposal, and how they can put that to good use to develop
technologies the developing countries need, eg ones dealing with
tropical diseases or tropical agriculture, where private industry
doesn't see profit opportunities and individual developing countries
do not have sufficient capacity.
I also realise that high world population growth places a burden on
resources. Still, that's not all of the story. There are also network
effects, the more people there are, the easier it is to specialise,
the more minds are there to develop technology. Not that that it is an
argument for unbridled population growth. But, I think it's nice to
also emphasise the benefits of co-operation over the need to get rid
of competitors for resources.
Phil Randal
> The "elephant in the room" or to put it more explicitly the real
> problem is over-population. If the population of the world was 650
> million, and not 6,500 million, then there would be no problem with
> global warming. The global emissions of CO2 would be reduced to a
> tenth of their current values and this is the level that scientists
> claim is neccessary to prevent "dangerous global warming". But the
> reason for the booming population is the scientific advances achieved
> by the Western World!
An alternative take is that those 650 million, unconstrained by
competition for resources with the other 5850 million, would each be
consuming more than your current average American citizen.
Cheers,
Phil
Alastair
> An alternative take is that those 650 million, unconstrained by
> competition for resources with the other 5850 million, would each be
> consuming more than your current average American citizen.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
Roughly speaking that is the situation now, and it is not sustainable
i.e. it is going to lead to dangerous climate change.
But it is not sustainable in another way. Do you really think all of
those 5,850 million people are going to be happy living at subsistence
level, while global TV is beaming in pictures of a better life
elsewhere. The rich countries will be overrun by illegal immigrants
just as is happening in the US and UK today.
Cheers, Alastair.
James Annan
Nice idea, but I don't believe it. USAians (and many of us in the west)
can only consume so much because of what the others produce. There is
also a limit to how much we can reasonably eat, and not that many
obvious alternative uses for the land that would not need to be farmed.
James
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
> can only consume so much because of what the others produce. There is
> also a limit to how much we can reasonably eat, and not that many
> obvious alternative uses for the land that would not need to be farmed.
I would point out that as said earlier in this thread, there is not
just consumption going on. For telecommunications or languages we all
know about network effects, how extra participants raise the value of
the overall network to every participant.
Extra people also means greater possibilities for specialisation and
greater resources that can be thrown at technology development.
Now I know that the internet is an extreme example. Extra participants
don't take anything away from the existing users, but may add content.
Still, it's far from clear that 600 million people is necessarily
better for the environment than 6 billion. If the latter number means
there is sufficient critical mass to develop clean energy and farming
methods, and the former means that there aren't sufficient resources
to do so and we are stuck polluting.
Of course, we don't have a choice between 600 million and 6 billion
starting now, not really, short of anybody having the powers of
persuasion to convince 90% of humanity to commit suicide ;-)
Alastair
wrote:
>
> Of course, we don't have a choice between 600 million and 6 billion
> starting now, not really, short of anybody having the powers of
> persuasion to convince 90% of humanity to commit suicide ;-)
True! The population will be reduced to 600 million whethre we i the
West like it or not, unless we can persuade the Chinese and Americans
to sign up to Kyoto.
Oh, so you say Kyoto is dead? Well then so are all of us!
Cheers, Alastair.
Tom Adams
nothing to do with it being beneficial or not. Perhaps beneficial
emissions should not be charged against the emitting nation's account
regardless of when it occurred.
On Dec 15, 3:44 pm, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
I am not convinced that Kyoto either cost very much or did much in
terms of emissions reductions.
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
> nothing to do with it being beneficial or not. Perhaps beneficial
> emissions should not be charged against the emitting nation's account
> regardless of when it occurred.
Carbon debt is an argument used by developing nations (including
China) and a number of NGO's to press the case for transfer payments
from developed nations to developing nations to pay for their
emissions reductions and as reparations for supposed damage caused to
them.
I argue that:
1. This poisons the debate
2. It is unjust, because the industrial revolution and the resulting
development of positive technologies such as PV could not have
happened without carbon emissions
3. It is also unjust, because there was neither an intention to cause
harm to other countries nor an awareness that this was likely
4. It is unjust that present generations should pay reparations for
the sins of their ancestors
Let's rather start with the notion that developed nations are wealthy,
have the capacity to do good and the wish to do so, if they think it's
going to make a big difference.
Tom Adams
On Dec 30, 3:29 am, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> > The relative date of an emission (past, present, or future) has
> > nothing to do with it being beneficial or not. Perhaps beneficial
> > emissions should not be charged against the emitting nation's account
> > regardless of when it occurred.
>
> Carbon debt is an argument used by developing nations (including
> China) and a number of NGO's to press the case for transfer payments
> from developed nations to developing nations to pay for their
> emissions reductions and as reparations for supposed damage caused to
> them.
>
> I argue that:
>
> 1. This poisons the debate
> 2. It is unjust, because the industrial revolution and the resulting
> development of positive technologies such as PV could not have
> happened without carbon emissions
Yeah, but industry today and in the future can also develop positive
technogies. What's so magic about past emissions vs future emissions?
> 3. It is also unjust, because there was neither an intention to cause
> harm to other countries nor an awareness that this was likely
Nobody intends to cause harm by emitting CO2, regardless of when they
do it. This applies both to past and future emissions. How could
ignorance of the consequences possibly be a defense?
> 4. It is unjust that present generations should pay reparations for
> the sins of their ancestors
Happens all the time. If a person who you are suppose to inherit from
have debts when they die, you have to pay the debts from their estate
and you get what is left of the estate.
Nick Santos
> have the capacity to do good and the wish to do so, if they think it's
> going to make a big difference.
Also, I think your four points are interesting, but probably not correct as Tom Adams pointed out, and I would still contend that number two is probably less significant than you think and impossible to measure.
-Nick
Alastair
On Dec 31, 6:00 pm, Nick Santos <ultraa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Let's rather start with the notion that developed nations are wealthy,
> > have the capacity to do good and the wish to do so, if they think it's
> > going to make a big difference.
>
> I understand where you are coming from, but that argument won't fly, at
> least not here in the U.S. Even if our Senate wanted to do good
> internationally, they still have to convince the conservative populace and
> there are still deep running isolationist tendencies here that push back
> against sending actual money to help other countries instead of soldiers
> backed by money to "help" other countries.
>
> Also, I think your four points are interesting, but probably not correct as
> Tom Adams pointed out, and I would still contend that number two is probably
> less significant than you think and impossible to measure.
>
> -Nick
>
You Yanks just don't get it!
If the US Senate, and that means the majority of the US electorate,
don't accept that unchecked gloabal warming will destroy civilisation,
then there is no hope for humanity.
But since Copenhagen it has become clear that the agenda has changed!
It is no longer the US that is the superpower. It is China! If we
cannot get China to hold back on growth then we are all doomed. And
China's prime minister is a wrecker just like GWB. The USA were too
late in electing Obama. They sealed the fate of the world when they
elected GWB. His re-election was only a counter signature on that
death sentence.
When are you democrats/liberals going to get that message over to the
American people?
Cheers, Alastair.
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
> technogies. What's so magic about past emissions vs future emissions?
For past emissions, there is nothing we can do about them. We can just
count up liabilities.
So, we can merely make up an overall balance for the past. We cannot
do that accurately. Neither the future benefits of developed
technologies nor the future damages of the emissions are known, but we
can make some qualitative judgements about the need to pay
reparations.
For future emissions, there are more choices. So, there is the
possibility to split the efforts between research on the one hand and
actual emission reduction on the other. I know it's hard to
objectively quantify the value of research, but it's also hard to
objectively agree on a price for carbon. So, why not just use a
commonly agreed value for any given year (eg each 20 Euros of
qualifying research and development spend counts for one tonne of CO2
in 2010)?
> Nobody intends to cause harm by emitting CO2, regardless of when they
> do it. This applies both to past and future emissions. How could
> ignorance of the consequences possibly be a defense?
In murder cases vs car accidents the intention makes a big difference
for the punishment. And so does ignorance of consequences; here in the
Netherlands there is a case where a boy was locked up in a container.
He died and the defense lawyers make a great deal of the fact that
their clients did not know that the boy would die.
> Happens all the time. If a person who you are suppose to inherit from
> have debts when they die, you have to pay the debts from their estate
> and you get what is left of the estate.
You are right that this applies to eg the debt of countries, but even
then countries do in fact default or are forgiven debt incurred by a
previous regime often enough.
With financial debts, there is of course a formal agreement about the
value of the debt and countries mostly receive money in exchange for
incurring the debt liabilities. So, China may now hold one trillion of
US treasuries. The US received something in return and there are
written agreements how much needs to be paid back by when.
Climate debt seems to me more comparable to war reparations or efforts
to amend for the evils of slavery.
Tom Adams
wrote:
China established this agenda at least two and a half years before
Copenhagen:
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/msg/fb70f1f327859fa8?hl=en
> It is no longer the US that is the superpower. It isChina! If we
> cannot getChinato hold back on growth then we are all doomed. AndChina'sprime minister is a wrecker just like GWB. The USA were too
> late in electing Obama. They sealed the fate of the world when they
> elected GWB. His re-election was only a counter signature on that
> death sentence.
>
> When are you democrats/liberals going to get that message over to the
> American people?
>
> Cheers, Alastair.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Adams
paying for
the lion's share of mitigation and adaptation is somehow anti-
pragmatic, then
I agree that it should not be implemented regardless of whether it is
just or not.
However, if the developing world can pay the debt, it's a quite
reasonable thing to do
and it would address China's justice argument.
With reparations, you are asking a defeated country to pay a huge
debt, and that
can give you a failed state, but currently the developed world is in
relatvely good
shape.
With the debt of slavery, the decendents of slaves just don't have the
power to
press their demands, so it's all just blue sky for now. But obviously
China is
a player in the global warming negotiations, so their view of what
constitutes
a just settlement must be somehow addressed.
On Jan 1, 4:48 am, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
> power to
> press their demands, so it's all just blue sky for now. But obviously
> China is
> a player in the global warming negotiations, so their view of what
> constitutes
> a just settlement must be somehow addressed.
This reminded me of:
http://volokh.com/2009/12/21/the-climate-coalition-of-the-willing/
"Let’s suppose this money comes through. What is it for? One reads
the press reports on the Copenhagen meeting in vain for this
information; nor do any of the official documents I have seen shed any
light on this issue. Consider the following possibilities:
1. The money will go to the countries that experience the worst
climate-related harm.
2. The money will go to the poorest countries.
3. The money will go to the poorest countries that experience the
worst climate-related harm.
4. The money will finance green energy infrastructure in developing
countries. ...
In fact, none of these principles ought to provide the basis for
distribution of the fund. The fund should be used to pay off
countries whose participation in a climate treaty is essential but
have little interest in participating. ...
The contrary view(s), that rich countries should pay money to poor
countries or climate victims, has no political legs. This position
simply raises the price tag for climate mitigation, a crazy thing to
do when already people are balking at paying anything at all."
I think China are quite willing to invest their own money into
renewables and to sign up to strict CO2 standards for cars, but they
will not accept high carbon taxes. They want technology transfer and
if that comes together with CDM type payments that is a bonus.
I do not think they care a great deal about the likes of Somalia and
Tuvalu getting a lot of climate aid.