Comments on Caroline Boin “Global body can't improve climate”, 1/02/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/global-body-cant-improve-climate/story-e6frg6zo-1225825236806
An important issue that has been deliberately concealed in the climate debate is the right of equal per capita emissions, even the past responsibilities of emissions were to forgiven.
An equal per capita emission right will mean anyone who emits more has to pay more and compensate others for endanger their livelihood. Poor countries do not need the rich countries’ so called “aid” for their climate change actions. They have their right to a good climate and the right to ask those high emitters to pay for damaging the climate.
EU countries, including the US and Australia are double standard and hypocritical in demanding poor countries to cut emissions while the rich countries continue to emit many times more than the poor countries in per capita terms.
Why don't those rich countries talk about universal human rights in this regard? Why should they treat the people in poor countries as second rate citizens?
Unless the rich countries recognise and acknowledge and respect the equal per capita emission right of everyone, rich or poor, a global body that is controlled by rich countries due financial resources, will not help bringing the right actions required for dealing with climate change - it can only advance the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor countries and would be grossly unfair.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Lincoln, I'm not sure what motivates your statement that "[developed countries] are double standard and hypocritical in demanding poor countries to cut emissions while the rich countries continue to emit many times more than the poor countries in per capita terms".
ReplyDeleteWhich government of a developed country has ever mentioned any such thing?
The only proposals I have heard of making demands of developing countries is to ensure that the growth in emissions is less than would be under a "business-as-usual" scenario. This is in line with the principle of converging on equal per-capita emisssions by some time in the future, say mid-century.
If you have seen anything contradicting this, I'd be interested to hear about it!
rishikesh, thanks for asking this question.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, if one listens to what most politicians in developed countries say, it is not difficult to know they, like in Australia and the US, want China and India to cut their emissions.
You are correct in saying some ask them to be under "business-as-usual". But what is "business-as-usual"? Who determines that? Does a real absolute cut fall into this category? Do you really believe they meant "business-as-usual" as you understand it? What, for example about China's announcement of so large percentage cuts to business as usual? Why some other countries still demand more?
A "converging" by sometime in the future! Why in the future and not now? Isn't that logic a robber's?
There are some many issues with the stances of some developed countries, but they are blaming developing countries for the failure of Copenhagen!
How many of them have fulfilled their promises under Kyoto?
What motivates me to say that? You can probably guess it, it is for international justice. The rich cannot continue to stupefy the poor and treat them as second class with low intelligence! If they have not lived up to their historical responsibilities to the global climate change, they should at least pay their current damages! Isn’t that fairer than their plots?
Isn’t that clear?