Comments on Jeffrey Frankel “The Copenhagen Accord: Real progress through 2020 emission goals?” 19/03/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/19/the-copenhagen-accord-real-progress-through-2020-emission-goals/
Any ad hoc approach and hope all important parties will accept that approach may be some wishful thinking.
If emissions are really having a negative effect on climate change, the best and most equitable approach is to correct that negative effect by explicitly "taxing" emissions wherever they occur and distribute that tax proceed to those who have a right to a good climate.
That does not need to arbitrarily define who should and who shouldn't bear the costs or how much each should bear.
It is simply so puzzling why such a simple economic principle taught in economics is so easily forgotten or abandoned by virtually all bright economists around the world. Instead, they are inventing this scheme, that scheme, then they try to rationalise with this or that.
To me it is not too different from reinventing the wheel and is simply silly approaches, to put it mildly.
Showing posts with label Copenhagen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copenhagen. Show all posts
2010-01-13
How many order's best?
Comments on Geoff Carmody “From Rio to Copenhagen the model was wrong”, 13/01/2209, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/from-rio-to-copenhagen-the-model-was-wrong/story-e6frg6zo-1225818572530
Carmody proposes to use a consumption tax based approach to emissions reduction in the world.
It is a very awkward and distorted one from an economist that has forgotten or foregone basic economic principles, even though a tax based on consumption may be equivalent to a tax on emissions directly.
Why not tax emissions from their sources and directly?
It appears that it is all based on a country’s self interest, as opposed to what is the best policy for the world as a whole.
It seems it is all based on a country’s self interest. It is another form of special interest groups.
Carmody proposes to use a consumption tax based approach to emissions reduction in the world.
It is a very awkward and distorted one from an economist that has forgotten or foregone basic economic principles, even though a tax based on consumption may be equivalent to a tax on emissions directly.
Why not tax emissions from their sources and directly?
It appears that it is all based on a country’s self interest, as opposed to what is the best policy for the world as a whole.
It seems it is all based on a country’s self interest. It is another form of special interest groups.
2010-01-07
Is economics rich countries'?
Comments on Andrew Elek “The G20: principles for meeting the global challenge of climate change”, 7/01/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/01/07/the-g20-principles-for-meeting-the-global-challenge-of-climate-change/
Although the article touched about the so called self selection of big groups like the G20, it has not advanced any effective measures or principles for such groups to avoid or mitigate that tendance among those groups or perceptions among others outside those groups.
Why don't people devisee some principles or processes that can improve the representation of those groups? For example, to have a principle of voting weight associated with any members that are actually representing not only themselves but also some others outside those groups? This will create some incentives for group members to take the interests of others outside the groups.
A second issue that the article also touched but failed to have a sound economic principle is equal per head emissions. If emissions represent a market failure, why don't economists apply the sound economic principles of tackling market failures such as externalities associated with emissions?
I guess it is all related to self interests that rich countries will have to shoulder the main costs if such well founded economic principles are applied. It is a well entrenched problem of economics it is perceived to be rich countries' tool to disadvantage the others and when it does not suit the rich, it will be abandoned.
For example, why is it the case for "convergence towards equal emissions per head by an agreed date, such as 2050", proposed in this article, as opposed to now or even back dated to the past?
Where is the user pay principle? Where is the property right that economists and everyone talk about?
Although the article touched about the so called self selection of big groups like the G20, it has not advanced any effective measures or principles for such groups to avoid or mitigate that tendance among those groups or perceptions among others outside those groups.
Why don't people devisee some principles or processes that can improve the representation of those groups? For example, to have a principle of voting weight associated with any members that are actually representing not only themselves but also some others outside those groups? This will create some incentives for group members to take the interests of others outside the groups.
A second issue that the article also touched but failed to have a sound economic principle is equal per head emissions. If emissions represent a market failure, why don't economists apply the sound economic principles of tackling market failures such as externalities associated with emissions?
I guess it is all related to self interests that rich countries will have to shoulder the main costs if such well founded economic principles are applied. It is a well entrenched problem of economics it is perceived to be rich countries' tool to disadvantage the others and when it does not suit the rich, it will be abandoned.
For example, why is it the case for "convergence towards equal emissions per head by an agreed date, such as 2050", proposed in this article, as opposed to now or even back dated to the past?
Where is the user pay principle? Where is the property right that economists and everyone talk about?
2009-12-31
Hunt's love of Bush
Comments on Greg Hunt “George Bush key to green future”, 31/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/george-bush-key-to-green-future/story-e6frg6zo-1225814832888
Hunt's line of argument may or may not even be attractive to Australians. But it certainly misses the point totally.
The main causes of failure at Copenhagen were not because:
there were too many players or moving parts;
the target were too big; or
China was playing what Hunt describes as "classic 19th century power politics".
The fundamental causes of failure were:
developed countries wanted a deal that is unfair and will disadvantage developing countries and possibly will suffocate their economies, while rich countries can continue their much higher emissions;
the unrealistic expectations by main developed countries that developing countries must accept that unfair deal; and
the continued push by some developed countries for some developing countries to have even higher reduction targets.
If you have got the fact wrong, it is impossible to get the solution right.
A deal on climate change must be based on fairness if it involves all countries that have drastic differences in living standard, in income levels and in per capita emissions.
The only long term solution to climate change is to use the "emitters pay" principle, based on per capita emission levels.
Hunt should stop trying to be smarter politicians of developed countries and fool-playing developing countries.
Hunt's line of argument may or may not even be attractive to Australians. But it certainly misses the point totally.
The main causes of failure at Copenhagen were not because:
there were too many players or moving parts;
the target were too big; or
China was playing what Hunt describes as "classic 19th century power politics".
The fundamental causes of failure were:
developed countries wanted a deal that is unfair and will disadvantage developing countries and possibly will suffocate their economies, while rich countries can continue their much higher emissions;
the unrealistic expectations by main developed countries that developing countries must accept that unfair deal; and
the continued push by some developed countries for some developing countries to have even higher reduction targets.
If you have got the fact wrong, it is impossible to get the solution right.
A deal on climate change must be based on fairness if it involves all countries that have drastic differences in living standard, in income levels and in per capita emissions.
The only long term solution to climate change is to use the "emitters pay" principle, based on per capita emission levels.
Hunt should stop trying to be smarter politicians of developed countries and fool-playing developing countries.
2009-12-21
Why has Copenhagen failed and implications for next steps
Comments on Will Steffen “Climate change: a post-COP15 diagnosis”, 20/12/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/12/20/a-post-cop15-diagnosis/
The difficulties in managing the enormous tasks of dealing with the externalities and free riding of climate change issues were increased by many folds by the industrialised countries demanding for targeted reductions in developing especially emerging economies, because of their greed and ignorance or deliberately using offence as defence tactics.
The Kyoto bypassed the equity this difficult equity issue by requiring industrialised countries having reduction targets and no targets for developing countries and achieved the Kyoto Protocol.
At Copenhagen, the developed countries did not mention or deliberately ignored their very unfair advantages of several times higher of their per capita emissions over the developing countries and the need for them to reduce their current levels of emissions firstly and unconditionally. Instead, they were demanding the developing countries to do this and that.
Why didn't they acknowledge the fundamental principle of equality of each and every human being in terms of the right to equal per capita emissions?
Why didn't they adopt the user pay or polluter pay principle?
Why didn't they use the clear economic principle of addressing externalities?
It begs anyone's belief that the developed countries are serious about climate change, serious about human rights, serious about poverty reduction in the world, serious about a fair deal.
Just think about the leaked draft text by Danish and its "co-authors" and one knows what the developed countries wanted to do and achieve.
They might just think that the developing world is intellectually incapable of understanding the climate change issues.
They just want to keep the developing world in “developing” in perpetual forever, so they can always enjoy the advantages they have by starving the need of the developing world of their equal per capita emissions rights and their rights to improve their living standards.
That was the fundamental cause of the failure at Copenhagen.
What lies ahead post Copenhagen? It depends on the actions of the developed countries and the ball is clearly in their court, because notwithstanding the extremely unfair state of the negotiations to developing countries, major developing economies have pledged significant reduction measures.
If they continue to act selfishly, ignorantly and arrogantly, it is unlikely to make real progress on climate change.
The difficulties in managing the enormous tasks of dealing with the externalities and free riding of climate change issues were increased by many folds by the industrialised countries demanding for targeted reductions in developing especially emerging economies, because of their greed and ignorance or deliberately using offence as defence tactics.
The Kyoto bypassed the equity this difficult equity issue by requiring industrialised countries having reduction targets and no targets for developing countries and achieved the Kyoto Protocol.
At Copenhagen, the developed countries did not mention or deliberately ignored their very unfair advantages of several times higher of their per capita emissions over the developing countries and the need for them to reduce their current levels of emissions firstly and unconditionally. Instead, they were demanding the developing countries to do this and that.
Why didn't they acknowledge the fundamental principle of equality of each and every human being in terms of the right to equal per capita emissions?
Why didn't they adopt the user pay or polluter pay principle?
Why didn't they use the clear economic principle of addressing externalities?
It begs anyone's belief that the developed countries are serious about climate change, serious about human rights, serious about poverty reduction in the world, serious about a fair deal.
Just think about the leaked draft text by Danish and its "co-authors" and one knows what the developed countries wanted to do and achieve.
They might just think that the developing world is intellectually incapable of understanding the climate change issues.
They just want to keep the developing world in “developing” in perpetual forever, so they can always enjoy the advantages they have by starving the need of the developing world of their equal per capita emissions rights and their rights to improve their living standards.
That was the fundamental cause of the failure at Copenhagen.
What lies ahead post Copenhagen? It depends on the actions of the developed countries and the ball is clearly in their court, because notwithstanding the extremely unfair state of the negotiations to developing countries, major developing economies have pledged significant reduction measures.
If they continue to act selfishly, ignorantly and arrogantly, it is unlikely to make real progress on climate change.
Hardballs at Copenhagen
Comments on Lenore Taylor “Failure puts heat on Kevin Rudd”, 21/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/failure-puts-heat-on-kevin-rudd/story-e6frg6zo-1225812250597
Mr Rudd said some participants played hardballs, but unnamed them.
He is right. Some parties must have played hardballs.
The question is who they really are.
When industrialised countries, while some have already failed their targets under the Kyoto and the US has not ratified it, demand developing countries to cut their emissions without mentioning their level of emissions, it is an open question that they were not playing hardballs.
Just think about what both the US Secretary of States and its President's talk at the meeting, it will not be difficult for one to derive their own conclusion.
Also the leaked draft text by the group including Rudd at the meeting is another remainder what the industrialised countries have been doing.
Mr Rudd said some participants played hardballs, but unnamed them.
He is right. Some parties must have played hardballs.
The question is who they really are.
When industrialised countries, while some have already failed their targets under the Kyoto and the US has not ratified it, demand developing countries to cut their emissions without mentioning their level of emissions, it is an open question that they were not playing hardballs.
Just think about what both the US Secretary of States and its President's talk at the meeting, it will not be difficult for one to derive their own conclusion.
Also the leaked draft text by the group including Rudd at the meeting is another remainder what the industrialised countries have been doing.
2009-12-15
Global agreement on climate change must be fair and practical
Comments on “Greenhouse gas emissions: a theoretical framework and global solution” by Guest Author: Project Team of Development Research Centre of the State Council (DRC), China. 9/12/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/12/09/greenhouse-gas-emissions-a-theoretical-framework-and-global-solution/comment-page-1/#comment-84755
While the equal per capita rights of emissions are a good approach, to mingle the present task with historical emissions makes the proposal difficult to realise and accept by industrialised countries. Many people in industrialised countries who enjoyed the benefits of high emissions in the past have died. Do you want who to pay for their "over the equal per capita emissions"?
So it would be better to have two parts, first the present and future and the other part for the past. Focus on the present and future and reach an agreement.
For the past, it is up to those rich countries to "voluntarily" make some financial, technological and other assistance to developing countries.
Only this is a practical way to reach a fair and simple deal.
Attempting too much may mean achieving little.
While the equal per capita rights of emissions are a good approach, to mingle the present task with historical emissions makes the proposal difficult to realise and accept by industrialised countries. Many people in industrialised countries who enjoyed the benefits of high emissions in the past have died. Do you want who to pay for their "over the equal per capita emissions"?
So it would be better to have two parts, first the present and future and the other part for the past. Focus on the present and future and reach an agreement.
For the past, it is up to those rich countries to "voluntarily" make some financial, technological and other assistance to developing countries.
Only this is a practical way to reach a fair and simple deal.
Attempting too much may mean achieving little.
Americans not outplayed by anyone
Comments on Alan Kohler “America is being outplayed”, 15/12/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au//bs.nsf/Article/Americas-obligatory-lessons-pd20091214-YPRTJ?OpenDocument
No, the Americans are not outplayed by anyone, but by its own irresponsibility both domestically and internationally. Alan you are wrong on this, unfortunately.
Domestically, they were irresponsible in over consumption and over spending by government and privates. They created sub-prime mortgages problems and financial problems. They squandered the available cheaper capital on consumption and spending as opposed to investing in infrastructure and improving productivity.
Internationally, they refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and take any actions in reducing emissions or prepare themselves for it. It launched pre-emptive wars in Iraq, with nothing to do with war on terror, but controlling oil supply.
China is not out playing the US in Copenhagen. What it does is a legitimate right for any developing nation.
It is a developing country, with low income per capita less than 1 tenth of those in most industrialised nations. It’s emission per capita is only a fraction of those in the industrialised countries.
How can some people so blindly say China is the largest emitter by ignoring its huge population?
Where are those people who often talk about and demand for human rights in developing countries including China? Why don’t people in developing countries have the same emissions rights as the people in industrialised countries? Why should they pay for the much better living standard in industrialised nations?
Isn’t that hypocritical?
No, the Americans are not outplayed by anyone, but by its own irresponsibility both domestically and internationally. Alan you are wrong on this, unfortunately.
Domestically, they were irresponsible in over consumption and over spending by government and privates. They created sub-prime mortgages problems and financial problems. They squandered the available cheaper capital on consumption and spending as opposed to investing in infrastructure and improving productivity.
Internationally, they refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and take any actions in reducing emissions or prepare themselves for it. It launched pre-emptive wars in Iraq, with nothing to do with war on terror, but controlling oil supply.
China is not out playing the US in Copenhagen. What it does is a legitimate right for any developing nation.
It is a developing country, with low income per capita less than 1 tenth of those in most industrialised nations. It’s emission per capita is only a fraction of those in the industrialised countries.
How can some people so blindly say China is the largest emitter by ignoring its huge population?
Where are those people who often talk about and demand for human rights in developing countries including China? Why don’t people in developing countries have the same emissions rights as the people in industrialised countries? Why should they pay for the much better living standard in industrialised nations?
Isn’t that hypocritical?
Australia playing US deputy again at Copenhagen
Comments on Lenore Taylor “Poorer countries quit the summit”, 15/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/poorer-countries-quit-the-summit/story-e6frg6n6-1225810400652
Australia is really playing the US deputy again by rejecting developing countries' demand for continuing Kyoto.
There is also self interest involved, because Australia ratified it very late just two years ago and now there is report that Australia's emission would be 80% higher than the 1990 level using proper accounting.
If the international community does not enforce the past agreement and let Kyoto fail, then what is the prospect for any future agreement? What is the point to have another new agreement?
Australia should not stand shoulder and shoulder with the US on everything. The alliance issue should not overwhelm everything Australia does internationally.
Australia needs to stand up as a nation and fulfil its international obligations. Otherwise it will be an international laughing stock.
Australia is really playing the US deputy again by rejecting developing countries' demand for continuing Kyoto.
There is also self interest involved, because Australia ratified it very late just two years ago and now there is report that Australia's emission would be 80% higher than the 1990 level using proper accounting.
If the international community does not enforce the past agreement and let Kyoto fail, then what is the prospect for any future agreement? What is the point to have another new agreement?
Australia should not stand shoulder and shoulder with the US on everything. The alliance issue should not overwhelm everything Australia does internationally.
Australia needs to stand up as a nation and fulfil its international obligations. Otherwise it will be an international laughing stock.
2009-12-12
Copenhagen - a rich ploy?
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “China fights for its right to develop”, 12/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/china-fights-for-its-right-to-develop/story-e6frg75f-1225809562949
Let's leaving the argument about the climate change science aside for the moment and make no conclusions about that.
While some climate change sceptics may say that the argument that human activities has been causing climate changes and global warming is a conspiracy, now it appears that it may look more like a conspiracy or a ploy of the rich countries to contain the development of developing countries, especially big developing countries, particularly China.
The rapid economic growth of China and other big developing economies might be seen by some as a threat to the rich countries’ living standards, life styles and even security.
Let's leave the the fact that it is the rich countries that have produced/caused the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to the current level during the past century or so that is the cause if the theory that human activities have caused global warming is correct, because those countries even don't face up the reality that their emission levels are still several or tens of times of developing countries. The argument that China is the biggest emitter is more and more like to force China to split up or disintegrate, by deliberately ignoring its low per capita emissions of only a fraction of those of the developed countries.
UN acknowledges that there are still 150 millions people living in poverty in China, living in harsh winters without adequate heating. What does 150 million mean? It is about between six and seven times of Australia’s population.
So now it is known that Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister is one of the few who has drafted an agreement to reduce the responsibilities of the developed countries including Australia and the US, and increase the requirements for developing countries to put their development in jeopardy.
Isn’t it a conspiracy? Or doesn’t it sound like a rich ploy?
Let's leaving the argument about the climate change science aside for the moment and make no conclusions about that.
While some climate change sceptics may say that the argument that human activities has been causing climate changes and global warming is a conspiracy, now it appears that it may look more like a conspiracy or a ploy of the rich countries to contain the development of developing countries, especially big developing countries, particularly China.
The rapid economic growth of China and other big developing economies might be seen by some as a threat to the rich countries’ living standards, life styles and even security.
Let's leave the the fact that it is the rich countries that have produced/caused the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to the current level during the past century or so that is the cause if the theory that human activities have caused global warming is correct, because those countries even don't face up the reality that their emission levels are still several or tens of times of developing countries. The argument that China is the biggest emitter is more and more like to force China to split up or disintegrate, by deliberately ignoring its low per capita emissions of only a fraction of those of the developed countries.
UN acknowledges that there are still 150 millions people living in poverty in China, living in harsh winters without adequate heating. What does 150 million mean? It is about between six and seven times of Australia’s population.
So now it is known that Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister is one of the few who has drafted an agreement to reduce the responsibilities of the developed countries including Australia and the US, and increase the requirements for developing countries to put their development in jeopardy.
Isn’t it a conspiracy? Or doesn’t it sound like a rich ploy?
2009-12-11
The world needs US action on climate
Comments on “There's little love for the US”, COPENHAGEN DIARY: Lenore Taylor, 11/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/theres-little-love-for-the-us/story-e6frg7go-1225809225747
The US, arguably the highest per capita emitter of the world and the world largest economy, will continue to be a drag on climate actions of the world.
It may hold the world at ransom.
That will be disappointing for many years to come.
The world urgently needs the US to act on climate change. The US president wants actions, but those proposed steps are not big enough and he is constrained by US congress.
The US, arguably the highest per capita emitter of the world and the world largest economy, will continue to be a drag on climate actions of the world.
It may hold the world at ransom.
That will be disappointing for many years to come.
The world urgently needs the US to act on climate change. The US president wants actions, but those proposed steps are not big enough and he is constrained by US congress.
2009-12-10
Wong democratic?
Comments on Giles Parkinson "COPENHAGEN CALLING: The Penny drops", 10/12/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/COPENHAGEN-CALLING-Wong-way-pd20091210-YKR2Q?OpenDocument&src=sph
The Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong says: “It’s been a difficult start. Some of the language has been disappointing … some unhelpful,” she told her first news conference. “We’ve got to move away from blame shifting and finger pointing … there’s a whole range of sticking points.”
But if you attempt to create a deal that is very unfair to others but a handful of rich countries, you had already created the problem.
In such an environment, asking others not to make their points is simply extremely disappointing itself.
It is like a person is doing something bad but does not want other say that thing is not good.
While Wong does not want others to criticise the leaked “draft”, we should allow her to the freedom to express herself to show how some people are hypocrisy.
Internationally we need to encourage freedom of speech and democracy and equality between the rich and the poor.
The Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong says: “It’s been a difficult start. Some of the language has been disappointing … some unhelpful,” she told her first news conference. “We’ve got to move away from blame shifting and finger pointing … there’s a whole range of sticking points.”
But if you attempt to create a deal that is very unfair to others but a handful of rich countries, you had already created the problem.
In such an environment, asking others not to make their points is simply extremely disappointing itself.
It is like a person is doing something bad but does not want other say that thing is not good.
While Wong does not want others to criticise the leaked “draft”, we should allow her to the freedom to express herself to show how some people are hypocrisy.
Internationally we need to encourage freedom of speech and democracy and equality between the rich and the poor.
2009-12-09
Rich countries are jeopardising Copenhagen
Comments on ABC report “Leaked agreement rocks Copenhagen”, By Europe correspondent Emma Alberici for AM, 9/12/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2765792.htm?section=justin
It is reported Australia is in that so called committed group of the rich.
Isn’t it familiar?
The US is in that group.
They want to abandon Kyoto.
They want o hand the rein to rich countries.
They want to sideline the UN in the future.
Isn't it akin to GW Bush's policy?
Doesn’t it sound like our PM, keen to set up new focused groups like the Asian Pacific Community?
Is it a meeting of "minds"?
It is reported Australia is in that so called committed group of the rich.
Isn’t it familiar?
The US is in that group.
They want to abandon Kyoto.
They want o hand the rein to rich countries.
They want to sideline the UN in the future.
Isn't it akin to GW Bush's policy?
Doesn’t it sound like our PM, keen to set up new focused groups like the Asian Pacific Community?
Is it a meeting of "minds"?
A fair world deal is required for climate change
Comments on Lenore Taylor “Rudd left with little room to move as reality looms of deeper cuts”, 9/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/rudd-left-with-little-room-to-move-as-reality-looms-of-deeper-cuts/story-e6frg6zo-1225808413426
All the current offers and a likely deal at Copenhagen is unlikely enough to meet what the scientific community has demanded to contain the rise of temperature to within 2 degrees by end of century.
The only way to achieve that target is to move to a fair principle to avoid blame games and have emitters pay for what they emit.
Such a principle is to set equal amount of emissions right for everyone, irrespective they are rich or poor and whatever a country's situation.
There are very little acknowledgement from rich countries for such an equality based principle, because that means they would have to pay for their emissions.
Further, they are hypocritical to say they will "donate" to help poor countries for climate change.
What an irony and prostitution by the rich!
All the current offers and a likely deal at Copenhagen is unlikely enough to meet what the scientific community has demanded to contain the rise of temperature to within 2 degrees by end of century.
The only way to achieve that target is to move to a fair principle to avoid blame games and have emitters pay for what they emit.
Such a principle is to set equal amount of emissions right for everyone, irrespective they are rich or poor and whatever a country's situation.
There are very little acknowledgement from rich countries for such an equality based principle, because that means they would have to pay for their emissions.
Further, they are hypocritical to say they will "donate" to help poor countries for climate change.
What an irony and prostitution by the rich!
2009-12-07
An incredible piece of rubish for the environment
Comments on Rupert Darwall “A Marxist climate of denial”, 7/12/2009, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/a-marxist-climate-of-denial/story-e6frg6so-1225807504997
It is so hard to get what message Rupert Darwall is trying to put out to the public.
What is the relevance of this piece today?
Are we dreaming to the past days of the Marx era? What is for?
Shouldn’t people focus on how to reduce emissions and do something about climate changes now, as opposed to what and where Darwall is attempting to lead us to?
It is an unnecessary waste of resources to have this piece.
It is a shame that at this particular time before the glocal climate change conference at Copenhagen, we have such a piece to distract people's attention.
It is so hard to get what message Rupert Darwall is trying to put out to the public.
What is the relevance of this piece today?
Are we dreaming to the past days of the Marx era? What is for?
Shouldn’t people focus on how to reduce emissions and do something about climate changes now, as opposed to what and where Darwall is attempting to lead us to?
It is an unnecessary waste of resources to have this piece.
It is a shame that at this particular time before the glocal climate change conference at Copenhagen, we have such a piece to distract people's attention.
2009-11-05
A fair deal is more important than just a deal at Copenhagen
Comments on AAP report “Copenhagen a first step, says Garnaut”, 5/11/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Copenhagen-a-first-step-says-Garnaut-XGRPF?OpenDocument
“Presenting the annual Hawke lecture in Adelaide on Wednesday, Prof Garnaut described climate change as a diabolical policy problem.”
It is disappointing to see that experts are talking about the need for all countries of substantial size to make major contributions to the solution without mentioning what is a fair deal for all countries.
It is just a strategy for rich countries to take no actions and blame developing countries for rich countries' failures.
Just think that even experts are doing this, what politicians will do?
I am aware that Garnaut has said at sometime in the future there should be a case for equal per capita entitlement of emissions. Maybe he talked about this in this lecture and the media is not interested in reporting that part.
If that is the case, Garnaut is at least thinking about a fair deal, though not for now but for the future.
“Presenting the annual Hawke lecture in Adelaide on Wednesday, Prof Garnaut described climate change as a diabolical policy problem.”
It is disappointing to see that experts are talking about the need for all countries of substantial size to make major contributions to the solution without mentioning what is a fair deal for all countries.
It is just a strategy for rich countries to take no actions and blame developing countries for rich countries' failures.
Just think that even experts are doing this, what politicians will do?
I am aware that Garnaut has said at sometime in the future there should be a case for equal per capita entitlement of emissions. Maybe he talked about this in this lecture and the media is not interested in reporting that part.
If that is the case, Garnaut is at least thinking about a fair deal, though not for now but for the future.
2009-10-28
Albrechtsen wrong on Copenhagen
Comments on Janet Albrechtsen “Beware the UN’s Copenhagen plot”, 28/10/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/
Janet, I did not read your full article, but the heading and the introduction to the article on the web stuck me.
It is incorrect to say that it is to take money from the rich countries and give that to poor countries.
In fact it should be said that the rich countries have exploited the poor countries over the many decades by emitting global warming gases that will harm everyone, rich and poor.
Further a fair international treat would tax emissions globally and distribute that equally among all people in the world, based on equal rights to the sky for everyone.
Have you ever considered that?
This is just a couple of lines for you to consider, so you don't need to spend too much time to cite from sceptics and spread rumours and scare people.
As a journalist, one should do some basic work and apply some logical thinking.
There is no need to be hysterical.
Janet, I did not read your full article, but the heading and the introduction to the article on the web stuck me.
It is incorrect to say that it is to take money from the rich countries and give that to poor countries.
In fact it should be said that the rich countries have exploited the poor countries over the many decades by emitting global warming gases that will harm everyone, rich and poor.
Further a fair international treat would tax emissions globally and distribute that equally among all people in the world, based on equal rights to the sky for everyone.
Have you ever considered that?
This is just a couple of lines for you to consider, so you don't need to spend too much time to cite from sceptics and spread rumours and scare people.
As a journalist, one should do some basic work and apply some logical thinking.
There is no need to be hysterical.
2009-09-23
Is lord Stern correct?
Comments on Nicholas Stern "Lord Stern suggests new way out of Copenhagen deadlock", 22/09/2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/6215391/Lord-Stern-suggests-new-way-out-of-Copenhagen-deadlock.html
I seem to have been confused by the lord's figures. On the one hand, he is saying that "we need to reduce annual worldwide emissions from the present level of about 50 gigatonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent to no more than 20 gigatonnes by 2050."
On the other, he is saying "If we only reach the upper end of this range, much bigger annual reductions in emissions would be required in subsequent years, and cuts of more than 50 per cent by 2050 compared with 1990 to prevent a rise of more than 2˚C."
So isn't it from 50 to 20 more than 50% already? Or the present level of emissions are below that of 1990? Or have I got my understanding wrong?
If the lord is wrong on these figures, then couldn't he be wrong on his argument on climate change altogether?
Secondly, the lord says that "Developing countries, including China and India, also need to limit and decrease their emissions, but in ways that are consistent with their ambitions for continued economic growth and the reduction of poverty." Does that mean the current level of emissions in developing countries already exceeds the proposed level per capita by 2050? I doubt it be correct.
I seem to have been confused by the lord's figures. On the one hand, he is saying that "we need to reduce annual worldwide emissions from the present level of about 50 gigatonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent to no more than 20 gigatonnes by 2050."
On the other, he is saying "If we only reach the upper end of this range, much bigger annual reductions in emissions would be required in subsequent years, and cuts of more than 50 per cent by 2050 compared with 1990 to prevent a rise of more than 2˚C."
So isn't it from 50 to 20 more than 50% already? Or the present level of emissions are below that of 1990? Or have I got my understanding wrong?
If the lord is wrong on these figures, then couldn't he be wrong on his argument on climate change altogether?
Secondly, the lord says that "Developing countries, including China and India, also need to limit and decrease their emissions, but in ways that are consistent with their ambitions for continued economic growth and the reduction of poverty." Does that mean the current level of emissions in developing countries already exceeds the proposed level per capita by 2050? I doubt it be correct.
2009-09-11
On Dutch disease - a reply to Raghbendra Jha's comments
Comments on Raghbendra Jha’s reply to my comments on his article “India and the Copenhagen summit”, 9/09/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/04/india-and-the-copenhagen-summit/
You only mentioned the influx of foreign currency as capital inflow, you have not mentioned the need to use that foreign exchange to: 1. purchase the technologies and equipment necessary to reduce emissions without slowing economic growth, 2. to import other urgently needed technologies, capital goods and inputs by developing countries, 3. why can't a developing country use any foreign exchange to invest abroad, if appreciation is a concern?
The Dutch disease has been over blown out of proportions in many potential real scenarios. It partly reflects a poor understanding of economic development in its totality and to have only focused on effects of part of trade on exchange rate. It ignores so many things and is therefore is so incomplete to be used as a useful guide to economic development policy.
So I am afraid that the concern for appreciation is completely unnecessary and even unfounded. It is likely to reflect a poor understanding of the working processes of reducing emissions and the needs of many developing countries for more foreign currency to improve their economic conditions.
You only mentioned the influx of foreign currency as capital inflow, you have not mentioned the need to use that foreign exchange to: 1. purchase the technologies and equipment necessary to reduce emissions without slowing economic growth, 2. to import other urgently needed technologies, capital goods and inputs by developing countries, 3. why can't a developing country use any foreign exchange to invest abroad, if appreciation is a concern?
The Dutch disease has been over blown out of proportions in many potential real scenarios. It partly reflects a poor understanding of economic development in its totality and to have only focused on effects of part of trade on exchange rate. It ignores so many things and is therefore is so incomplete to be used as a useful guide to economic development policy.
So I am afraid that the concern for appreciation is completely unnecessary and even unfounded. It is likely to reflect a poor understanding of the working processes of reducing emissions and the needs of many developing countries for more foreign currency to improve their economic conditions.
2009-08-21
Principles for a simple, effective, efficient and equitable international agreement on global actions on climate change
Comments on Rajiv Kumar “India: Are we isolated on climate change?” 17/08/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/17/are-we-isolated-on-climate-change/
I think an effective, fair and practical international system for carbon emissions mitigation should be based on the following principles:
1. It is efficient from the global point of view, that is, to incur the least costs in achieving a given objective. This means every country needs to participate and a global tax imposed on emissions from every country.
2. It is effective, that is, it achieves the objective the target to mitigate global emissions. This means the targets of emission mitigation should be based on the most reliable scientific evidence.
3. It is fair to every country. It seems that a most likely internationally equitable approach is to have everyone at a certain given time the same "property right" of the global atmosphere, so they have the right to impose penalty on emissions from any countries. This means that the global tax should be distributed to everyone equally, irrespective which countries they are from.
4. It is simple to implement.
An international system of climate change may take many forms, but the underlying principles should be clear and well founded. An agreement based on the above principles is likely to be much superior to most systems currently discussed and debated in many countries, such as the emissions trading scheme bill in Australia recently defeated in its senate, or the similar bill in the US that passed its House of Representatives and is in front of its Senate. Those bills may aim at effecting a domestic emissions trading scheme that can be costly to administer.
Any country including both developed and developing countries alike can use these principles to formulate their negotiation strategies. India can be more proactive and effective in its attitude towards climate change and Copenhagen negotiation. A fair international system will not undermine developing countries’ interests, like India’s, but it will be in the best interest of every country.
I think an effective, fair and practical international system for carbon emissions mitigation should be based on the following principles:
1. It is efficient from the global point of view, that is, to incur the least costs in achieving a given objective. This means every country needs to participate and a global tax imposed on emissions from every country.
2. It is effective, that is, it achieves the objective the target to mitigate global emissions. This means the targets of emission mitigation should be based on the most reliable scientific evidence.
3. It is fair to every country. It seems that a most likely internationally equitable approach is to have everyone at a certain given time the same "property right" of the global atmosphere, so they have the right to impose penalty on emissions from any countries. This means that the global tax should be distributed to everyone equally, irrespective which countries they are from.
4. It is simple to implement.
An international system of climate change may take many forms, but the underlying principles should be clear and well founded. An agreement based on the above principles is likely to be much superior to most systems currently discussed and debated in many countries, such as the emissions trading scheme bill in Australia recently defeated in its senate, or the similar bill in the US that passed its House of Representatives and is in front of its Senate. Those bills may aim at effecting a domestic emissions trading scheme that can be costly to administer.
Any country including both developed and developing countries alike can use these principles to formulate their negotiation strategies. India can be more proactive and effective in its attitude towards climate change and Copenhagen negotiation. A fair international system will not undermine developing countries’ interests, like India’s, but it will be in the best interest of every country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
