Plerdsus
It seems unreasonable to blame global emissions on the developing world when their per capita emissions are so much less than the developed world, and their total emissions about the same as ours.

I don’t think the article is arguing for (or against) economic equality. The equality Nicholas is advocating is an equal “right” to emit as the starting point for global emissions controls, followed by global permit trading. That seems a far fairer starting point than, say, the Kyoto benchmark of countries’ 1990 emission levels, which in effect rewarded the worst polluters.

As developing countries currently emit far less per capita than we do, the immediate results of such a scheme would be that poor countries would sell their surplus trading permits to rich ones, yielding for many a significant windfall gain. Over time as poorer countries got richer they would buy back some of those permits and the price would start to rise, but they would have the same incentives as rich countries to choose low-emissions technologies and production processes.

The benefits of a global emissions trading scheme compared to national caps would be huge, and include encouraging efficiency and least-cost abatement worldwide, removing the opportunity and incentive to shift emissions from domestic industries to foreign ones by importing emissions-intensive goods, and placing a value of global assets such as rainforests which would make it worthwhile for their governments to protect them.

Rhian,

I am not blaming the developing world for global emissions. What I am saying is that the real problem is the prospect of a doubling of the third world population over the next 25 years, and that global emissions are only a symptom of the problem. If the population problem is not solved, it will make all efforts to reduce emissions futile, and we will all be doomed. It doesn't really matter who produced the emissions we have, the question is how to lower them. To give all persons in the third world the right to emit at the same per capita level as persons in the west is a recipe for disaster, as emissions would either increase unsustainably, or the western economies would collapse. Any proposal requiring large payments to the third world simply won't work, because the voters in the west wouldn't vote for the required taxes, and if the taxes could be imposed, the people simply wouldn't work. That is why I am suggesting a method whereby the third world can be induced to assist in emission reduction without any increase in the payments they are currently receiving.

What surprises me about this whole subject is that ALL these proposals require a substantial reduction in the current western standard of living, something that will be strongly resisted by voters everywhere, and will not be condusive to any increase in third world aid. Remember that usually when a resource becomes scarce, the usual procedure is to have a little war to see who gets the resource, and who gets nothing. if you have any doubts about this, just follow the current debate about electricity privatisation in NSW.

Over the next five years we can expect:

1. A threefold increase in the price of food.

2. A threefold increase in the price of electricity.

3. A threefold increase (at least) in the price of petrol.

Little wonder that the Howard years will soon be looked back on as the golden age.

Plerdsus, it shouldn't be tax payers buying carbon credits, but the companies with a large carbon footprint;ie comalco, bhp, and yes the electricity suppliers who are -or soon will be- private companies.
Yes, prices will go up in the next five years. What else is new?
Of course all people everywhere should be treated equally. Duh. This is the 21st century, for God's sake.
Just as the UN should be structured on the principle of 1 person 1 vote, instead on 1 nuclear weapon, 1 vote.
The whole push for alternative energy is to supply the equivalent of those other 462 barrels of oil. Again, duh.
The only amazing thing is, it is already doable, with existing technologies.
The only thing stopping us, is Capitalism, and the the tunnel vision which absolutely requires constant economic growth.
The Lord commanded, "Go forth and multiply".
When can we say:"We have gone forth and multiplied"?

Plerdsus “A threefold increase”

I agree with your assessment.

Some of that increase will be offset by falling housing prices / rentals as marginal investors withdraw from their investments to support their unavoidable consumption.

I have just written on another thread “Krudd will preside over a recession”. For him it is unavoidable and down to the attitude of socialists of “knowing best” and irresistible compulsion to “fiddle with the economy”.

But the big crunch will focus on the inability of Krudd & Co to produce the environment to encourage “confidence” and thus investment and jobs.

Grim “The only thing stopping us, is Capitalism,”

Back in 1985, a Czech dog met a Polish dog when things Poland were particularly tough and the dead hand of communist repression was at its height. To ameliorate the difficulties the Poles were approved, by Moscow, extra rations, better than the Czechs.

So the Czech dog asked the Polish dog “what does meat taste like?”

The Polish dog replied, “fine but what sort of dog would choose to eat when it is forbidden to bark?”

The point – like “democracy”, “capitalism” is the worst sort of economic model except for all the other models which have been tried and spectacularly failed.

Capitalism prevailed over socialism because socialism not simply ignores but represses the individual.

The capitalist gain / socialist loss is easy to identify, the individual is the motivating force which drives all and every development which occurs on earth. Deny the individual and you destroy the motivational force which produces solutions to current problems and advances to improve the ‘lot’ of future generations.

As for the notion of “equal right to produce carbon emissions”,
The future trading in the “carbon rights market” will ensure that the any right to produce “emissions” will become vested with those most able to pay for that right.

That is Capitalism at its worst, because “socialism” has no answer.

That displays the obvious superiority of capitalism over socialism, where the poor solution outclasses the non-solution

Thanks Nicholas Gruen, another step in the road to sensible policy.

-

Plerdsus, 'western aid' is merely our glorious leaders discrete way of rewarding their benefactors, check out who are the leading shareholders of Ozs biggest foriegn aid providers. Check out too the actual balance of payments of aid versus repayments, we've been draining the colonies for many years whatever our pretentions to 'christian charity'.
http://www.jubileeresearch.org/jubilee2000/news/imf0904.html
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article371
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=787

The idea of punishing the Majority World (before it becomes a problem) for the consequences of the Wests actions to date is Kafka at his best, no doubt it gets approval at the Melbourne Club along with the strippers and the brown collar servants but it doesn't work elsewhere. I suspect 'Blame China' is so big in Australia cos most Anglo aussies are still racist to some degree.

Similarly Col Rouge's rehash of neoliberal propaganda is dated and silly, as if Australia's dig-it-ship-it plutocracy is really capitalist and carbon trading is by definition socialist (then why does it have a trading market at its centre?). I know RightThink has had some setbacks (without Howards taxfunded bankroll) but y'all are risking relegation!

Col, it's interesting that you compare capitalism and democracy in such a way, however it is exactly because we have democracy that it is highly unlikely we will ever see anything like the brand of capitalism that you prefer, with the government taking as little responsibility as possible for the continued functioning and stability of society and the economy. It's inevitable that there will always be a significant class of people who are happy to outsource what you would see as personal responsibility to "the state", and it's also inevitable that there will be a significant class of people that are left behind in a system that insists that each man is responsible for his own welfare. The latter is of course why conservatives such as Bismarck and Disraeli championed the welfare state - to ensure that the working classes would be at least partially protected from the hazards of capitalism, and not rise up against it.

(Apologies for being off-topic - I do have some thoughts on the article itself, but waiting to see how the discussion develops).