There may be something worthwhile after all to "intensity-based" carbon emission targets. They're not appropriate for developed nations but they might work as a fair compromise for the emerging economies of India and China.
The developed nations, those responsible for the lion's share of the atmospheric carbon now giving rise to AGW, ought to adopt hard caps on carbon emissions. We've amassed great wealth but in the process have despoiled the global environment - so we kind of owe it to the planet to take the hit for what we've done.
That sacrifice ought to be made without letting other major emitters entirely off the hook. India and China should be required to pursue their economic development in conjunction with the introduction of cleaner, less-carbon intensive technologies. Both countries have already recognized the need to go that route anyway. Their own societies are in serious jeopardy if they don't. So, what's the hurdle? It seems to be in getting them to make a formal commitment to doing what they're going to have to do in any case. I think that speaks of a serious lack of trust in the developed world.
What's not to trust? The United States and Canada certainly come to mind. Along with Australia and Saudi Arabia we're the very dirtiest countries on the planet, man for man. We're preaching from the moral low ground, the abyss.
The thing is we suit each other's interests to a T. It's the industrialized world versus the industrializing world - pointed fingers blazing away. By framing the problem that way it becomes intractable, letting everybody off the hook. The Chinese decide that we won't bite the bullet, we decide that they won't either. Neat. By framing the issue this way we don't have to look beyond - to the little people, the poorest of the poor who will pay for our excess and our intransigence.
Think we're not ignoring the weakest and most vulnerable people on the planet? Think again. Look at the several threats to their very existence that they're facing and look at our role in contributing to those dangers. Increased temperatures, increased evaporation, disruptions in precipitation patterns, desertification, submergence and more - and we're driving these changes that beset these people. And to all the global warming deniers and the carbon emission "do nothing" crowd -you're sending these people a message - loud and clear - "Go fuck yourselves. I've got mine, buddy, you get yours the best way you know how."
The Globe & Mail published an editorial this week endorsing the Harper/Bush platform of environmental remediation patterned to the imperative of sustainable growth. Sustainable for whom? Sustainable where? Do they mean sustainable downriver, sustainable downwind, sustainable for people living in poverty thousands of miles away? Or do they mean sustainable just for us? The question answers itself.
The developed nations, those responsible for the lion's share of the atmospheric carbon now giving rise to AGW, ought to adopt hard caps on carbon emissions. We've amassed great wealth but in the process have despoiled the global environment - so we kind of owe it to the planet to take the hit for what we've done.
That sacrifice ought to be made without letting other major emitters entirely off the hook. India and China should be required to pursue their economic development in conjunction with the introduction of cleaner, less-carbon intensive technologies. Both countries have already recognized the need to go that route anyway. Their own societies are in serious jeopardy if they don't. So, what's the hurdle? It seems to be in getting them to make a formal commitment to doing what they're going to have to do in any case. I think that speaks of a serious lack of trust in the developed world.
What's not to trust? The United States and Canada certainly come to mind. Along with Australia and Saudi Arabia we're the very dirtiest countries on the planet, man for man. We're preaching from the moral low ground, the abyss.
The thing is we suit each other's interests to a T. It's the industrialized world versus the industrializing world - pointed fingers blazing away. By framing the problem that way it becomes intractable, letting everybody off the hook. The Chinese decide that we won't bite the bullet, we decide that they won't either. Neat. By framing the issue this way we don't have to look beyond - to the little people, the poorest of the poor who will pay for our excess and our intransigence.
Think we're not ignoring the weakest and most vulnerable people on the planet? Think again. Look at the several threats to their very existence that they're facing and look at our role in contributing to those dangers. Increased temperatures, increased evaporation, disruptions in precipitation patterns, desertification, submergence and more - and we're driving these changes that beset these people. And to all the global warming deniers and the carbon emission "do nothing" crowd -you're sending these people a message - loud and clear - "Go fuck yourselves. I've got mine, buddy, you get yours the best way you know how."
The Globe & Mail published an editorial this week endorsing the Harper/Bush platform of environmental remediation patterned to the imperative of sustainable growth. Sustainable for whom? Sustainable where? Do they mean sustainable downriver, sustainable downwind, sustainable for people living in poverty thousands of miles away? Or do they mean sustainable just for us? The question answers itself.
21 comments:
The data that the whole climate scam is based on was cooked, fudged and massaged. For a "for instance" see:
http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=145245
What I am sad about is that when this psyop/financial scam is seen for what it is, it will destroy the credibility of the environmental movement.
"There may be something worthwhile after all to "intensity-based" carbon emission targets. They're not appropriate for developed nations but they might work as a fair compromise for the emerging economies of India and China."
Good grief, the emerging countries already do a better job at "intensity targets" than does Canada. Don't buy the fallacies of the CPoC.
See: http://bestandbetter.blogspot.com/
Gee, anon. You get your climate science from the Financial Post? Wow, that's brilliant. And all this time I was foolishly going by the 2500 climate scientists of the IPCC when I could have just had an agenda-driven media account.
And, coffee, I think intensity-based formulae are the essential deadlock breaker to get the US and Canada to accept carbon caps. As I mention, they're already heading that way in any case. It would only be formalizing the process.
"And, coffee, I think intensity-based formulae are the essential deadlock breaker to get the US and Canada to accept carbon caps. "
Intensity targets don't do anything for overall caps. The planet needs caps.
Note, that India and China are in the norm re energy untilization. Look at the graph at: http://bestandbetter.blogspot.com/
Caps and intensity targets are two very different things.
Harper's intensity targets are like saying to people trying to lose weight: exercise more so you can burn more calories more efficiently but don't care about what or how much you eat - eat and crap all you want. That is Harper approach to "enviromentalism".
Mound is correct in saying we are heading that way:
Bali draft says all nations must join climate fight
Sat Dec 8, 2007
pg 2 (and then there were 3)
...
Canada and Australia joined Japan on Saturday in calling for commitments from some developing countries.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL0847529820071208?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Blaming poor countries for climate change is both factually and morally wrong.
Facts:
A. In absolute terms, the G8 produces more GH than the rest of the world. Further, Canada is the number 8th producer of GHs in absolute total emissions. In absolute terms, the issue is largely G8 caused.
B. In relative terms, suppliers to the US are the principle relative cause of the inefficient use of energy and emissions (Canada being a prime example).
The source of the problem (in both absolute and relative terms) is principle not the developing world, that is a fact.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument... as you were.
Ancient history Walks, in the here and now, clean energy technology (nuclear) is available.
When we developed nations were developing, we had no such tech available or we would have used it.
China wants to produce exports on the cheap,and sell cheap.
So why don't eco warriors boycott cheap China imports made with dirty energy ?, or boycott petroleum products (better wait until the summer, hard to keep air in the bicycle tires at -30) or maybe it's all about the protests and trips to beautiful places, and not about saving the planet.
"Ancient history Walks, in the here and now, clean energy technology (nuclear) is available. "
You are writing to someone with a physics degree. I was an industrial scientist.
Re nuclear availability, there is not enough uranium in the world to meet even 10% of world energy supplies.
Re safe, mining and disposable health issues have not been resolved.
On China's exports, if you don't want them get your conservative govs (in Canada and the US) to boycott.
You are BSing.
Walks with Coffee: China has cheap products to sell because Western Companies are in China taking advantage of China's particular lack of infrastructure which they (China) are bent on getting some sort of control. So do tell...isn't that more greed on the part of Westerners? With that going on, do you really think Canada and the U.S. are going to hit on Western Companies...no! It is easier for them to attack China and India while inducing fear into the Canadian and American populace.
"So do tell...isn't that more greed on the part of Westerners? "
Who’s arguing that consumerism from the G8 is not the principle source of climate change - that would be Mr. Harper.
In truth, the G8 consumes more and wastes more than the rest of the world combined; we drive our suppliers to do the same. The climate change issue is principally a G8 made problem. Poor and developing countries are not the problem, despite Mr. Harper’s duplicitous claims.
You and I aren't far apart WwC but we do need to encourage China to upgrade from its primitive coal power facilities. That doesn't have to cause undue damage to the Chinese economy. China knows it has to go that route anyway. But someone has to put forward the framework of a deal the parties can agree to in principle and then negotiate allocations from there.
Science can prescribe the ppm limits we must meet and the amount of carbon emissions we can tolerate to stay within those bounds. Working within that global cap we can then allocate equitable quotas taking into account all the factors that come into play. Developed nations can and should take the greatest burden. Developing economic giants should shoulder a considerable lower obligation to accomodate their development. And then we need to deal with the third-tier nations and give them all the assistance they require to adapt to the changes we're imposing on their nations and their populations.
I really don't think we're going to get very far approaching this from the top down. Our focus ought to be with the most vulnerable, hardest hit countries, the very nations that have done the least by far to contribute to the climate change problem. Sort them out first and work our way up from there.
"You and I aren't far apart WwC but we do need to encourage China to upgrade from its primitive coal power facilities. "
But note, even with inapproprate coal-burning facilaties, China still uses energy more efficiently than Canada (and the G8).
"That doesn't have to cause undue damage to the Chinese economy."
I agree, it would not.
"China knows it has to go that route anyway. But someone has to put forward the framework of a deal the parties can agree to in principle and then negotiate allocations from there."
Hypocrites who advocate lessor standards than what they are already doing will not get anything meaningful done.
"Science can prescribe the ppm limits we must meet and the amount of carbon emissions we can tolerate to stay within those bounds."
Has already been done. It is called kyoto
"Working within that global cap we can then allocate equitable quotas taking into account all the factors that come into play. Developed nations can and should take the greatest burden. "
Of course, we are responsible for "the lion's share" of the problem.
"Developig economic giants should shoulder a considerable lower obligation to accomodate their development."
No. They are already at the norm. What we need is to redefine the standards and help them get there by showing the way ourselves.
"And then we need to deal with the third-tier nations and give them all the assistance they require to adapt to the changes we're imposing on their nations and their populations. "
Create a new lower norm in the G8 first - by example - then help meet the new standard. India, China already are ahead of us relative to the norm.
"I really don't think we're going to get very far approaching this from the top down."
Think again, we are the principle cause so we must take the principle actions.
"Our focus ought to be with the most vulnerable, hardest hit countries, the very nations that have done the least by far to contribute to the climate change problem."
BS... ditch the "blame the poor" and "make them do it first" mantra
"Sort them out first and work our way up from there."
More BS... working on those that don't cause the bulk of the problem and letting the main cause go... pure nonesense... you ended your argument with pure double-speak
''You are writing to someone with a physics degree. I was an industrial scientist.''
A degree is no guarantee of common sense.
Tho I do tip my hat to anyone who was able to better themself with and education, of any kind.
WwC, drop the smug, self-righteousness. If you take that enormous chip off your shoulder you'll be able to read what I actually said. At no time was I trying to "blame the poor." To the contrary I want immediate intervention, funded by the developed nations, to give assistance urgently needed by the poorest and most vulnerable countries afflicted by climate change. Tier 1 and Tier 2 can argue (and will) for years but the bottom rung needs help now and will need increasing amounts of assistance for the decades to come. They'll need water projects, engineering projects, food and health assistance, efforts to halt and reverse desertification - you name it. That's not "blame the poor" WwC, not at all.
"WwC, drop the smug, self-righteousness. If you take that enormous chip off your shoulder you'll be able to read what I actually said."
So there! Do you feel better for attempting to shame me?
As for shame, without accepting the need for serious change within the G8 and calling for change within poor countries first, you are "blaming the poor" for the problem
"At no time was I trying to "blame the poor." "
Those guys first was your position. That is to say, they are the problem so them first
"To the contrary I want immediate intervention, funded by the developed nations, to give assistance urgently needed by the poorest and most vulnerable countries afflicted by climate change."
You should have said that... but that is still a half statement/truth
"Tier 1 and Tier 2 can argue (and will) for years but the bottom rung needs help now and will need increasing amounts of assistance for the decades to come. They'll need water projects, engineering projects, food and health assistance, efforts to halt and reverse desertification - you name it. That's not "blame the poor" WwC, not at all."
I'm proud of you for wanting to help the poor... but you still have not stated the truth that the G8 is the cause of the bulk of the problem, therefore the solution must occur within the G8 to solve the bulk of the issue.
Again, without accepting the need for change within the G8 and calling for change within poor countries first, you are "blaming the poor" for the problem
WwC, I am not calling for poor countries to commit first. I do agree that the developed nations (and that goes well beyond G8) need to act first and accept binding caps. But we're just debating philosophy here. The US rep (Harlan Watson) has already announced his country won't accept any mandatory cap regime at Bali but will come up with its own plan in mid-2008. Baird says Canada won't sign on to anything without American approval. China insists that the US act first. This isn't happening. period. The rest is all shoulda, coulda, woulda at this point.
Which is why I think we need to accept what's coming and start assisting the poorest and most vulnerable nations NOW.
Walks with Coffee: You are absolutely correct...it is the G8 countries who are to blame for the mess we are in. I'd like to add a point here about China. I left China in March 2007. Near where I was living was a huge International hub where companies from all over the world have their headquarters in China. A person can go out into the surrounding countryside and look back upon Hwangdao....guess which flag is the biggest and can be seen the most? You guessed it..... Canada. The point....17% of China's population is between age 17-24...that is their future work force...China does not want that approaching work force to be sick. I had to leave China due to breathing problems. Now that I am back in Canada, I am experiencing all kinds of allergies. The stance the Haper Government is taking on Climate Change makes me sick. Every bit of it is to placate American International Companies. When is someone going to call the "spade" a "spade?" According to the Harper Government we are above having to put ourselves in a position of setting an example....how demeaning.
Canada has recently lectured India and China several times to clean up their environmental climate record. However, Canada has the worst relative energy-efficiency record of our G8 partners and is dramatically less efficient than our European Allies. Canada is number eight in the world in absolute total greenhouse gas emissions.
Those facts create a problem with for us at the Balil climate conference. The meeting is about an absolute total worldwide cap in greenhouse gas emissions. In absolute terms our friends in the G8 produce more emissions than the rest of the world combined. The bulk of the worldwide emissions problem is principally from eight countries, including us. Therefore the solution must start with us. We are in no position to lecture others unless we act.
In contrast, Mr. Harper is calling for absolute “intensity” targets, which would allow countries to emit more so long as they are efficient at it. We are embarrassed enough by being a major emitter but additionally, Mr. Harper is stating in front of the world that Canada’s position is that we should be allowed to emit more so long as we are efficient at it. Mr. Harper is offering an excuse for his policies that will make the climate situation worse. He is not willing to show real leadership.
The world sees right through Mr. Harper’s hypocrisy. His duplicitous drenched arguments are embarrassing Canada.
Please read the latest on Bali. It's over. Consensus blocked. Washington has said "no" to mandatory caps. It has said "no" to any global deal. It claims it will come up with its own climate change plan - in mid-2008. Baird has said no deal without the US. China has said no deal without the US. The Americans, with Canada's co-operation, have blocked consensus. It's over. Who lectures whom at this point doesn't matter a whit. The worst polluters on the planet are giving this a thumbs down.
Post a Comment