The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The climate freeloaders: emerging nations need to act > Comments

The climate freeloaders: emerging nations need to act : Comments

By Fred Pearce, published 27/3/2009

Key developing countries have been exempt from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That policy must change.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Australia's controversial 'baby bonus' goes large on if national carbon targets are based on population. Perhaps we could deem appropriate population not actual; for example Bangladesh should have 15 million population, not 150m. The facts on the ground suggest all is not lost since I believe Asia will depend on Australia and the US for coal imports within a decade. Saudi Arabia's oil output peaked several years ago so they are heading towards a cliff. Australia could also say that uranium exports are instead of, not additional to coal exports.

Assuming Australia had its green-house in order we could offer other countries a choice; take an export tax on coal and LNG or a blanket import tariff on finished goods. Note the import tariff hurts both the Australian consumer and the Asian producer. For that reason the proceeds could be split 50/50 so long as the money went on genuine clean tech.

As for the 'nothing can be done' camp, ask yourselves what use you are in an emergency.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 27 March 2009 10:42:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since about 80% of the greenhouse gases that are currently in the atmosphere come from us in the developed world, we have a disproportionate responsibility to do something about them now, although the other countries cannot get out of responsibility for a long-term solution. In families, shared flats, etc., we operate on the principle of "You made the mess, you clean it up." If the Gulf States are extracting or processing petroleum products and the Asian Tigers are manufacturing consumer goods to be consumed in the developed world, then surely the final emissions should be assigned to whoever consumes the final product.

If entitlements to emit greenhouse gases are to be assigned on the basis of population, then it needs to be on the basis of population as of some reference date. Why should a country be able to grow its entitlement and take a bigger share of the capacity of the planet to absorb wastes by irresponsibly growing its population? It might make more sense to assign shares on the basis of the share of global population that a country could support at some reference standard of living.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 27 March 2009 10:48:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is mere neo-religious drivel. Why don't you turn your superstitious proclivities to gabbling the rosary beads instead - just as vain and deluded, but much less anti-social.

Take a look at this:

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/cap-n-tax.pdf
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Friday, 27 March 2009 9:55:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a kind of stabiliser effect here. The countries which generate the most CO2 emissions will be the ones that are actually making and selling things to the rest of the world, and as such they will quickly become -- like China -- creditors to the rest of us, who are simply using things up and moving money, paper and electrons around. With the US one trillion dollars in debt to China, does anyone really think it can afford to wave a big stick and make demands about reducing emissions?

Any nation that wants to have a real say in world affairs needs to get its economic affairs in order first. With countries as with people: when you show that you can pay your debts then you will be listened to.
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 28 March 2009 11:11:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ve always been of the opinion that pollution should be measured on total output, not per capita output. Per capita measures allow one wrong (excess population) to reduce culpability for another wrong (pollution output).

Per capita measures result in walking basket-cases like Bangladesh, who stagger from one natural disaster to next only with the crutch of large infusions of the foreign aid, and , who it would seem, are only waiting for another Irish Potato Famine happening , to off load their excess population onto the rest of the world , being presented as less culpable/more responsible—what a joke!

And in view the evidence now coming to light that many of worst polluters are exempted from Kyoto .It would seem that much of the noble sounding slogans and international statesperson-like poses taken by our politicians and advocates who pushed for Kyoto’s early ratification, were actually more designed to garner short-term political advantage, than change the world.

The developing & undeveloped world(s) cannot accept the benefits of industrialisation /modernity without also accepting some of the blame.

If it is true that much of the existing pollution has original in the developed world, it is equally true that much of the technology ,medicines & aid that the rest now depends on originated in the developed world –so at its least, its a charge of ‘accessory after the fact’ .
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 29 March 2009 8:08:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Confessions of an Eco-Sinner: Tracking Down the Sources of My Stuff"

This sounds more like religion than science to me...
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 29 March 2009 10:10:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy