Comments on Brad Glosserman “Wisdom of an Asia rising”, 6/08/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/06/wisdom-of-an-asia-rising/
I’d like to make some quick comments.
1. Are “self interested” individual countries necessarily incompatible with the common good of a group? Adam Smith had a quite different idea that laid the foundation of economics.
2. While it is obviously very important to ensure human activities are sustainable environmentally, is it economically sound for Asian countries to have greener consumer consumption, irrespective what is happening elsewhere and what the process or trajectory of human green evolution or revolution? Wouldn’t that “go it alone” mentality, especially for developing countries in Asia, be too far ahead the possible reality to be optimal for them?
Showing posts with label green growth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green growth. Show all posts
2009-08-07
2009-07-27
Some facts on China's actions on emissions - lessons for Australia
Comments on Keith Orchison “Chinese energy is greener than ours”, 27/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25838638-5015664,00.html
This is an interesting article. We need to know the real and hard facts like what are described in this article to understand what is really happening in the world. Politicians may present us a picture that may or may not be true.
China is a big emitter of greenhouse gases and there is no question about that. That is because China is the world largest country in terms of population, 5 times as large as the US.
This article points out that China, a developing country, has been taking actual actions in reducing its impact on emissions.
At home here, we have been constantly hearing from some people especially politicians that we should wait to see what China decides to do on its emissions. While ,China has been doing much more than we, a rich country, have done.
So there it is, dear politicians, you have it now. What you should and need and must decide to do in terms of emissions?
Action, action and action. Don’t just find excuses, don’t delay actions any more. Start doing something now.
This is an interesting article. We need to know the real and hard facts like what are described in this article to understand what is really happening in the world. Politicians may present us a picture that may or may not be true.
China is a big emitter of greenhouse gases and there is no question about that. That is because China is the world largest country in terms of population, 5 times as large as the US.
This article points out that China, a developing country, has been taking actual actions in reducing its impact on emissions.
At home here, we have been constantly hearing from some people especially politicians that we should wait to see what China decides to do on its emissions. While ,China has been doing much more than we, a rich country, have done.
So there it is, dear politicians, you have it now. What you should and need and must decide to do in terms of emissions?
Action, action and action. Don’t just find excuses, don’t delay actions any more. Start doing something now.
2009-06-12
A simple and effective global emission reduction scheme
Comments on Christopher Findlay “Green growth and how to get there”, 10/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/10/green-growth-is-hot/
I like your second paragraph, Christopher. The best the government can do is to create an environment for the private sector to innovate to bring the best technologies for green growth. Government mandates are not necessarily good. It is no different from some politicians or bureaucrats trying to pick winners, and they seldom can get it right.
The important thing is the price signal. If government can get a creditable pricing of carbon emissions, and have a future path for it, then the private sector will react. The government can provide some incentives to innovation and it can use the revenue from a carbon tax or emission permits.
PC sometimes makes very dry and irrelevant recommendations. But I am with PC On this point – let the market and the private sector work through competition according to price signal and incentives.
I prefer a universal carbon tax and have a schedule for the price to go up over a period. Emissions permits and trading are likely to be less effective and less efficient. They, like the current Australian government proposal, will probably leave transport emissions out.
A universal or uniform carbon tax is the most efficient and effective way to do it, even though it is difficult to get the tax rate right at the beginning to achieve certain reductions. But that can be sorted out fairly soon.
This difficulty of a carbon tax is no different to the use of interest rate to manage the economy. It takes time.
So my approach is a universal carbon tax and certain government incentives for innovation and development of new technologies.
It is better to have a global carbon tax and an international transfer system for high cost countries to pay for low cost countries. Alternatively, an international agreement on reduction targets for countries and then supplementing that agreement with an international emissions trading system.
I like your second paragraph, Christopher. The best the government can do is to create an environment for the private sector to innovate to bring the best technologies for green growth. Government mandates are not necessarily good. It is no different from some politicians or bureaucrats trying to pick winners, and they seldom can get it right.
The important thing is the price signal. If government can get a creditable pricing of carbon emissions, and have a future path for it, then the private sector will react. The government can provide some incentives to innovation and it can use the revenue from a carbon tax or emission permits.
PC sometimes makes very dry and irrelevant recommendations. But I am with PC On this point – let the market and the private sector work through competition according to price signal and incentives.
I prefer a universal carbon tax and have a schedule for the price to go up over a period. Emissions permits and trading are likely to be less effective and less efficient. They, like the current Australian government proposal, will probably leave transport emissions out.
A universal or uniform carbon tax is the most efficient and effective way to do it, even though it is difficult to get the tax rate right at the beginning to achieve certain reductions. But that can be sorted out fairly soon.
This difficulty of a carbon tax is no different to the use of interest rate to manage the economy. It takes time.
So my approach is a universal carbon tax and certain government incentives for innovation and development of new technologies.
It is better to have a global carbon tax and an international transfer system for high cost countries to pay for low cost countries. Alternatively, an international agreement on reduction targets for countries and then supplementing that agreement with an international emissions trading system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
