Comments on Clive Hamilton "Australia hit its Kyoto target, but it was more a three-inch putt than a hole in one", 16/07/2015
It is an interesting account of Australian government's strategy and tactics on the Kyoto negotiations, although we need also analyse why the rest of the world accepted Australia's demand back then.
One of the main reasons could be that studies showed that the impact on the Australian economy of an equal proportionate reduction in emissions was projected to be harder than on most other international economies. I remember that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resources Economics (ABARE) had done researches and policy simulations that may have fed into the Australian government's policy stance.
Of course, research is one thing and how research is used by people and/or governments is entirely another.
Further, it is probably not too much a stretch of imaginations that each and every country would have done some studies on emissions reduction policies and adopted what it thought the best in those negotiations. ABARE's research was probably qualitatively correct, even though one may argue about the specific results ABARE had got and supplied to the Australian government.
On another point, the author has argued quite reasonably why Russia got its bargain. If that argument is true, then the quoted of being "bracketed Australia with OPEC and Russia as the principal obstacles to progress in the negotiations", by two German analysts, Sebastian Oberthur and Hermann Ott, that was "two years later, when the dust had settled", as follows was unreasonable at least as far as Russia was concerned as it didn't take into account Russia's special circumstances:
"The Kyoto targets surely have two main winners: Russia and Australia… The considerable increase in emissions allowed to Australia … has set a bad precedent for future negotiations, especially with regard to developing countries."
If those two Germans are serious researchers, their arguments showed significant weakness. As a result, it simply demonstrates that even serious people can get their arguments wrong, either deliberately to be misleading or unintentionally as innocent errors.
Showing posts with label international agreements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label international agreements. Show all posts
2011-05-03
Doha round difficulties and approaches to WTO negotiations
Comments on Ann Capling “The end of Doha as we have known it: what next for Australian trade policy?” 3/05/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/03/the-end-of-doha-as-we-have-known-it-what-next-for-australian-trade-policy/
I have to say that I am very unfamiliar to WTO Doha round negotiations, not to mention the causes of current difficulties.
I would like to ask a question however. Why could WTO adopt a rather different approach to member negotiations by having a forward opt in strategy?
Such a strategy would be to advance a version of forward and make it an agreement among them first if there are at least a set minimum number of countries or with a set minimum share of world trade agree to a clause, with it open for other members to opt in at a later stage. Once opting in, a country should only move forward.
This strategy would settle on agreements and leave disagreements aside.
With proper provisions or revision to existing rules, it could avoid the current cumbersome negotiations and make gradual and steady advancement and could potentially replace the needs for regional trade agreement for many countries.
In fact, such a strategy could be applied to some other international organisations, such as different UN bodies.
More specifically, UN climate change negotiations.
I have to say that I am very unfamiliar to WTO Doha round negotiations, not to mention the causes of current difficulties.
I would like to ask a question however. Why could WTO adopt a rather different approach to member negotiations by having a forward opt in strategy?
Such a strategy would be to advance a version of forward and make it an agreement among them first if there are at least a set minimum number of countries or with a set minimum share of world trade agree to a clause, with it open for other members to opt in at a later stage. Once opting in, a country should only move forward.
This strategy would settle on agreements and leave disagreements aside.
With proper provisions or revision to existing rules, it could avoid the current cumbersome negotiations and make gradual and steady advancement and could potentially replace the needs for regional trade agreement for many countries.
In fact, such a strategy could be applied to some other international organisations, such as different UN bodies.
More specifically, UN climate change negotiations.
2011-03-14
Source of difficulty climate agreement lies in ignoring simple economic principles
Comments on Peter Drysdale “Regional movement on the global problem of climate change”, 14/032011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/03/14/regional-movement-on-the-global-problem-of-climate-change/
The fundamental weaknesses of the approaches to international climate change agreements in recent years are the lack of application of sound economic principles of "users pay".
It is strangely incredible that there are well agreed economic principles in dealing with pollutions and the negative externalities of local pollutions that are equally applicable to global pollutions such as emissions, but they have been ignored in this global issue.
Most economists including mainstream economists in industrialised countries especially in the US have been silent on this. It is a remarkable display of international political economy in which even most respected economists are well aligned with their national interests at the expense of the global climate.
Imagine that the users pay principle was applied, the heavy polluters have to pay for their emissions and those less users will receive their benefit from the compensation of those who damaging their property rights. Then there is no need for any industrialised countries to be acting like a donor in favour of developing nations. No need even for them to mention such a thing.
It should not be too difficult to reach an acceptable international agreement and control emissions levels, by all countries.
The fundamental weaknesses of the approaches to international climate change agreements in recent years are the lack of application of sound economic principles of "users pay".
It is strangely incredible that there are well agreed economic principles in dealing with pollutions and the negative externalities of local pollutions that are equally applicable to global pollutions such as emissions, but they have been ignored in this global issue.
Most economists including mainstream economists in industrialised countries especially in the US have been silent on this. It is a remarkable display of international political economy in which even most respected economists are well aligned with their national interests at the expense of the global climate.
Imagine that the users pay principle was applied, the heavy polluters have to pay for their emissions and those less users will receive their benefit from the compensation of those who damaging their property rights. Then there is no need for any industrialised countries to be acting like a donor in favour of developing nations. No need even for them to mention such a thing.
It should not be too difficult to reach an acceptable international agreement and control emissions levels, by all countries.
2010-12-14
Cancun may mark a point of turning for better climate
Comments on Julian Hunt “Cancun marks a turning point”, 14/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cancun-marks-a-turning-point/story-e6frg6zo-1225970529189
The Cancun outcome does not necessarily mean what Professor Hunt argues it means.
Hunt's assessment shows the disappointment by people who would like greater and more significant actions and earlier actions. To them, Cancun is far short of their expectations.
Let's say Cancun means actions for the next decade. Then we will have a lot of time to take further and possibly more significant actions in the future after the next decade.
If Cancun can result in real actions by major emitters especially the US that has not been part of the Kyoto actions, then it will pave the way for a better future.
The important point is to get every country to act.
Cancun may play that role, if the US government can get congress to approve it.
People should be optimistic as opposed to pessimistic about actions to tackle climate change.
There can be multiple paths of actions. Cancun can only present an earlier part of the paths.
I agree that Cancun may mark a turning point, but that is a point to turn better rather than worse.
The Cancun outcome does not necessarily mean what Professor Hunt argues it means.
Hunt's assessment shows the disappointment by people who would like greater and more significant actions and earlier actions. To them, Cancun is far short of their expectations.
Let's say Cancun means actions for the next decade. Then we will have a lot of time to take further and possibly more significant actions in the future after the next decade.
If Cancun can result in real actions by major emitters especially the US that has not been part of the Kyoto actions, then it will pave the way for a better future.
The important point is to get every country to act.
Cancun may play that role, if the US government can get congress to approve it.
People should be optimistic as opposed to pessimistic about actions to tackle climate change.
There can be multiple paths of actions. Cancun can only present an earlier part of the paths.
I agree that Cancun may mark a turning point, but that is a point to turn better rather than worse.
2010-04-22
Speculative and cooperative
Comments on Ming Hwa Ting “The new Spice War: China, Japan and rare metals”, 22/04/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/04/21/the-new-spice-war-china-japan-and-rare-metals/
Good observations or speculations.
People, firms and countries are all rational and intelligent enough to maximise their interests in a given environment or even change that environment to do it if they can.
Whenever there is market power, they will use it to their advantages.
Why not and who will not. Haven't we seen that happens in oil, or other raw materials like iron ore in the international market?
But they are also rational enough to develop reasonably cooperative arrangements to maximise the interests of the greater whole.
While it is interesting for some parties to speculate on what may happen, it is more important for relevant parties to cooperate to achieve better outcomes for all, based on the Plato efficiency principle.
Good observations or speculations.
People, firms and countries are all rational and intelligent enough to maximise their interests in a given environment or even change that environment to do it if they can.
Whenever there is market power, they will use it to their advantages.
Why not and who will not. Haven't we seen that happens in oil, or other raw materials like iron ore in the international market?
But they are also rational enough to develop reasonably cooperative arrangements to maximise the interests of the greater whole.
While it is interesting for some parties to speculate on what may happen, it is more important for relevant parties to cooperate to achieve better outcomes for all, based on the Plato efficiency principle.
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.
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.
2009-10-06
How should Europe be represented at international bodies?
Comments on Gideon Rachman “Europe’s plot to take over the world”, 6/10/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Europes-plot-to-take-over-the-world-pd20091006-WK2CN?OpenDocument&src=sph
While the current structure and membership of the G20 can be regarded as a transitional arrangement to bridge the G8 and a new permanent G20, it is a bit unfair to have so many European representatives from both its individual member countries and from its unity bodies.
Europe should be represented either as a group or as individual countries, but not by both. It is up to them to decide how they would like to be represented.
While others are polite enough not to raise this issue openly and directly with the Europeans, they should have self awareness and be wise enough not to be unreasonable in their representation at the G20.
They should act without the urge of others. The earlier they do that, the better for both them and the rest.
While the current structure and membership of the G20 can be regarded as a transitional arrangement to bridge the G8 and a new permanent G20, it is a bit unfair to have so many European representatives from both its individual member countries and from its unity bodies.
Europe should be represented either as a group or as individual countries, but not by both. It is up to them to decide how they would like to be represented.
While others are polite enough not to raise this issue openly and directly with the Europeans, they should have self awareness and be wise enough not to be unreasonable in their representation at the G20.
They should act without the urge of others. The earlier they do that, the better for both them and the rest.
2009-09-24
On Tim Wilson's “Pass the climate parcel”
Comments on Tim Wilson “Pass the climate parcel”, 24/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26116014-7583,00.html
I couldn't help laughing when reading your article. It is amusing and an interesting read.
Nevertheless, I can't whole heartedly agree with or share your view that "INTERNATIONAL negotiations are like a game of political pass the parcel and every government is desperate to ensure they're not holding up negotiations when the music stops."
I acknowledge there is enough truth in it, but it is not and can't be true all the time.
China has made encouraging promises and India is also catching up, whether it is due to the pressure you argue or not. And that is a good thing to see on this important issue of climate change.
We should encourage the players to make more progress, as compared to just holding a stick!
I couldn't help laughing when reading your article. It is amusing and an interesting read.
Nevertheless, I can't whole heartedly agree with or share your view that "INTERNATIONAL negotiations are like a game of political pass the parcel and every government is desperate to ensure they're not holding up negotiations when the music stops."
I acknowledge there is enough truth in it, but it is not and can't be true all the time.
China has made encouraging promises and India is also catching up, whether it is due to the pressure you argue or not. And that is a good thing to see on this important issue of climate change.
We should encourage the players to make more progress, as compared to just holding a stick!
2009-09-04
A global ETS would be good for everyone
Comments on Raghbendra Jha “India and the Copenhagen summit”, 4/09/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/04/india-and-the-copenhagen-summit/
If a global ETS is done on a voluntary basis and everyone has the same right to emit, I don't see any disadvantage to developing countries. To the contrary, I think it will be a good thing for both developed and developing countries, as well as the global climate.
I think if a global carbon tax and a global ETS are done on the basis of equal per capita allocation of emission rights, then it can only be a good thing to everyone.
Such a global scheme will be efficient, effective and equitable and represents the best global policy in dealing with reducing emissions.
The problem is that very few people are promoting a global ETS and a global carbon tax, due to various political reasons. It indicates a lack of leadership both at the global, international and national levels and that is a pity.
If a global ETS is done on a voluntary basis and everyone has the same right to emit, I don't see any disadvantage to developing countries. To the contrary, I think it will be a good thing for both developed and developing countries, as well as the global climate.
I think if a global carbon tax and a global ETS are done on the basis of equal per capita allocation of emission rights, then it can only be a good thing to everyone.
Such a global scheme will be efficient, effective and equitable and represents the best global policy in dealing with reducing emissions.
The problem is that very few people are promoting a global ETS and a global carbon tax, due to various political reasons. It indicates a lack of leadership both at the global, international and national levels and that is a pity.
China should be effective and practical in climate change negotiations
Comments on Stephen Howes “Can China rescue the world climate change negotiations?” 1/09/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/01/can-china-rescue-the-world-climate-change-negotiations/
China should play neither a spoiler nor a hero in global climate negotiations.
It should play an active part, as a developing country as it is and should not over commit itself to cause unnecessary damages to itself. It has done many things that caused it dearly in the past and should not repeat them.
What China can do and should do is to promote an ambitious, fair and effective global agreement to combat climate changes.
That is what China needs commit itself to do.
China should play neither a spoiler nor a hero in global climate negotiations.
It should play an active part, as a developing country as it is and should not over commit itself to cause unnecessary damages to itself. It has done many things that caused it dearly in the past and should not repeat them.
What China can do and should do is to promote an ambitious, fair and effective global agreement to combat climate changes.
That is what China needs commit itself to do.
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.
2009-08-10
A simple and effective principle for a global climate agreement
Comments on Yongsheng Zhang “Bush wrong on India and China and climate change”, 22/07/2008, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/07/22/bush-wrong-on-india-and-china-and-climate-change/
While there can be many different arguments, as Zhang and others may have done so, the most realistic and practical way in the most simplest manner, in concept, could be characterised as to apply a global carbon tax so to achieve whatever the target would need to be, then distribute this global revenue to the world population (maybe based on a certain time) equally, that is equal per capita.
This approach will be able to address many problems except the historical causes or contributions. But that point could be regarded as “bygone as bygone” (we won’t hold those dead people to be responsible for solving our future climate problems), if and when the current allocation can be done on an equal per capita basis.
Based on this principle, other scheme broadly consistent with this can be designed and implemented.
While there can be many different arguments, as Zhang and others may have done so, the most realistic and practical way in the most simplest manner, in concept, could be characterised as to apply a global carbon tax so to achieve whatever the target would need to be, then distribute this global revenue to the world population (maybe based on a certain time) equally, that is equal per capita.
This approach will be able to address many problems except the historical causes or contributions. But that point could be regarded as “bygone as bygone” (we won’t hold those dead people to be responsible for solving our future climate problems), if and when the current allocation can be done on an equal per capita basis.
Based on this principle, other scheme broadly consistent with this can be designed and implemented.
2009-07-30
Luke Nottage's reply appreciated
Reply to Luke Nottage’s reply to my comments on his article “China, national security, and investment treaties”, 24/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/24/china-national-security-and-investment-treaties/comment-page-1/
Thanks, Luke.
What I thought was there had been missing links in the whole drama of that detention. Each side has been left with speculations, misinformation and misunderstanding.
Another point was that it was highly likely that Stern Hu was caught in Chinese wider measures to clean up its internal management issues and in that process Stern Hu was a party to some of those issues.
There is more to be hoping for a better Chinese legal system we'd like to, and for the Chinese people too. It is them to bear that legal system much more than we Australians. The Stern Hu case, while being taken so seriously in Australia and with a lot of publicity, it is highly likely to a drop in the ocean in China as there are many more, much more serious cases that may be unfair from our point of view, or even may also be unfair within that complex and sometimes not clear legal system.
Your colleague's argument is impractical even to raise at a bilateral discussion. Even it could be done, probably there are always ways to bypass it, I am afraid.
Thanks, Luke.
What I thought was there had been missing links in the whole drama of that detention. Each side has been left with speculations, misinformation and misunderstanding.
Another point was that it was highly likely that Stern Hu was caught in Chinese wider measures to clean up its internal management issues and in that process Stern Hu was a party to some of those issues.
There is more to be hoping for a better Chinese legal system we'd like to, and for the Chinese people too. It is them to bear that legal system much more than we Australians. The Stern Hu case, while being taken so seriously in Australia and with a lot of publicity, it is highly likely to a drop in the ocean in China as there are many more, much more serious cases that may be unfair from our point of view, or even may also be unfair within that complex and sometimes not clear legal system.
Your colleague's argument is impractical even to raise at a bilateral discussion. Even it could be done, probably there are always ways to bypass it, I am afraid.
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.
2009-07-14
Be optimistic on climate negotiations
Comments on Alan Kohler “A monumental failing”, 14/07/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/A-monumental-failing-pd20090714-TWSS4?OpenDocument&src=sph
Alan, I understand any frustration you may have over the current state of climate negotiations. Most people would share that concern.
However, I think it is important to think strategically on the climate negotiations. The US' coming to the party, especially its House of Reps approval of the emissions reductions bill, is an equally, if not more important, monumental landmark in the course of climate change.
It is a case of the bottle being half full versus half empty, isn’t it? Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholders, doesn't it?
Seriously, what I think is most important is the signals an international agreement will send to both the private and government sectors, albeit the goals appear to be long term that fall short in the short to medium term. With them there will be innovations. That will propel the real progress of climate change.
So let's be optimistic on the climate in which we will be living.
Alan, I understand any frustration you may have over the current state of climate negotiations. Most people would share that concern.
However, I think it is important to think strategically on the climate negotiations. The US' coming to the party, especially its House of Reps approval of the emissions reductions bill, is an equally, if not more important, monumental landmark in the course of climate change.
It is a case of the bottle being half full versus half empty, isn’t it? Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholders, doesn't it?
Seriously, what I think is most important is the signals an international agreement will send to both the private and government sectors, albeit the goals appear to be long term that fall short in the short to medium term. With them there will be innovations. That will propel the real progress of climate change.
So let's be optimistic on the climate in which we will be living.
2009-07-13
We can't afford to be hypocritical between the rich and the poor nations
Comments on the comments by hc on my earlier comments on “US climate change bill – how international provisions work”, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/10/us-climate-change-bill-how-international-provisions-work/
hc, I understand your point that China will need to and must join the international efforts in the fight to limit global warming. However, you say that the lead time of 2020 gives China the change to do something. I was not talking about China only. I was talking about the whole issue, that includes how the US has behaved itself until a few months ago and how it intends to behave towards others, that is one. If you say it is not bully, then what is bully? Is there any agreeable definition of bully? Is that because the US is so strong that other people cannot openly say it is bullying if it is doing it? Let's be fair to everyone, including ourselves, alright?
Secondly, it is not just China, there are so many developing economies. China has been singled out by you probably because you think China's emissions are so large. That is a fair point and I don't disagree with you on that. But why didn't you mention how much China's emissions are on a per person basis, and compare that with those in the US or in Australia? Why don't you ask for the US and Australia and for that matter every OECD country to reduce their emissions to the Chinese per capita level first? Then ask China to begin its reduction in line with others?
Is there any conspiracy against the Chinese in terms of their rapid economic growth by some people, so an unfair or unequal playing field is created for China in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions to limit and slow its rapid growth, so it would be poor forever without joining the rich club in which the US and Australia belong? In this regard, China is only one of the fast growing developing countries that also have a considerable size. They may be against many countries.
Are we afraid that the past poor people will be joining in our ranks so to diminish our glories?
You talk about the internalisation of an externality. Yes, that is a very good point. The question I have for you is that why don't say the externality in terms of per capita emissions? Why don't you say the externality in terms of historical contributions of emissions by the rich countries? And the externality they cause to other poor countries over so many years?
You talk about that the adverse equity effects can be addressed. That is also correct, and that is my central point. However, does the US bill talk and address those adverse equity effects? Does it talk about the per capita equity and historical equity at all?
I am not against the US recent efforts. I think its efforts need to be congratulated.
However, the international community needs to stand up for justice, for rich and for poor countries equally, and for powerful and weak countries equally.
We should not just simply follow the superpower and become the coalition of the "willing" to blindly do whatever the superpower wants us to do. We especially need to stand up for the poor and weak countries when they are treated unfairly by the most powerful countries.
Many people understand the issue of externality and free lunch and how they work. Those theories are no longer the monopoly of the rich. The poor also can apply it. Isn't it the case the US was having free lunch after the Kyoto? Why does it suddenly wake up to this externality issue now? Why don't you mention these?
hc, I understand your point that China will need to and must join the international efforts in the fight to limit global warming. However, you say that the lead time of 2020 gives China the change to do something. I was not talking about China only. I was talking about the whole issue, that includes how the US has behaved itself until a few months ago and how it intends to behave towards others, that is one. If you say it is not bully, then what is bully? Is there any agreeable definition of bully? Is that because the US is so strong that other people cannot openly say it is bullying if it is doing it? Let's be fair to everyone, including ourselves, alright?
Secondly, it is not just China, there are so many developing economies. China has been singled out by you probably because you think China's emissions are so large. That is a fair point and I don't disagree with you on that. But why didn't you mention how much China's emissions are on a per person basis, and compare that with those in the US or in Australia? Why don't you ask for the US and Australia and for that matter every OECD country to reduce their emissions to the Chinese per capita level first? Then ask China to begin its reduction in line with others?
Is there any conspiracy against the Chinese in terms of their rapid economic growth by some people, so an unfair or unequal playing field is created for China in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions to limit and slow its rapid growth, so it would be poor forever without joining the rich club in which the US and Australia belong? In this regard, China is only one of the fast growing developing countries that also have a considerable size. They may be against many countries.
Are we afraid that the past poor people will be joining in our ranks so to diminish our glories?
You talk about the internalisation of an externality. Yes, that is a very good point. The question I have for you is that why don't say the externality in terms of per capita emissions? Why don't you say the externality in terms of historical contributions of emissions by the rich countries? And the externality they cause to other poor countries over so many years?
You talk about that the adverse equity effects can be addressed. That is also correct, and that is my central point. However, does the US bill talk and address those adverse equity effects? Does it talk about the per capita equity and historical equity at all?
I am not against the US recent efforts. I think its efforts need to be congratulated.
However, the international community needs to stand up for justice, for rich and for poor countries equally, and for powerful and weak countries equally.
We should not just simply follow the superpower and become the coalition of the "willing" to blindly do whatever the superpower wants us to do. We especially need to stand up for the poor and weak countries when they are treated unfairly by the most powerful countries.
Many people understand the issue of externality and free lunch and how they work. Those theories are no longer the monopoly of the rich. The poor also can apply it. Isn't it the case the US was having free lunch after the Kyoto? Why does it suddenly wake up to this externality issue now? Why don't you mention these?
2009-07-10
A fair international game for all in reducing emissions
The US house of representatives has passed a bill to reduce greenhouse emissions and the bill will need to be past in the US senate to become a law. It is an encouraging sign from the US that has acted to drag the international efforts to reduce emissions in the past, re the Kyoto protocol.
The recent G-8 meeting is reported to be going to make declaration on reducing greenhouse emissions. Some reports say G-8 countries would reduce their emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. It is commendable target and encouraging.
There are also reports that the developing countries are expected to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.
While all these seem to be good, there are some interesting questions that demand answers sooner or later. For example, what is a fair target of emissions reductions and hence the level of emissions by a certain time for a particular country? This is relevant and unavoidable, because some of the developing countries have almost negligible emissions per capita. Do we ask them also to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by 2050? Is that fair for that country? How can that country raise its living standard?
It would be difficult to reach an agreement on fair emissions levels for countries. However, it seems fair enough to have an equal right for every person to have the same level of emissions at a future time, even the past responsibility of who have contributed to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is forgiven. The number of total population should also be decided at a time, so any future changes in population should be the responsibility of individual countries. If a country has faster population growth its total allowable emissions levels will not be increased.
An equal per capita level of allowable emissions should be an important part of fundamental human rights, irrespective who is rich or poor, where he or she lives, which country he or she belongs to.
The international community must resolve this fundamental issue of fair levels of emission entitlement for everyone on the global at a certain time.
The recent G-8 meeting is reported to be going to make declaration on reducing greenhouse emissions. Some reports say G-8 countries would reduce their emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. It is commendable target and encouraging.
There are also reports that the developing countries are expected to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.
While all these seem to be good, there are some interesting questions that demand answers sooner or later. For example, what is a fair target of emissions reductions and hence the level of emissions by a certain time for a particular country? This is relevant and unavoidable, because some of the developing countries have almost negligible emissions per capita. Do we ask them also to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by 2050? Is that fair for that country? How can that country raise its living standard?
It would be difficult to reach an agreement on fair emissions levels for countries. However, it seems fair enough to have an equal right for every person to have the same level of emissions at a future time, even the past responsibility of who have contributed to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is forgiven. The number of total population should also be decided at a time, so any future changes in population should be the responsibility of individual countries. If a country has faster population growth its total allowable emissions levels will not be increased.
An equal per capita level of allowable emissions should be an important part of fundamental human rights, irrespective who is rich or poor, where he or she lives, which country he or she belongs to.
The international community must resolve this fundamental issue of fair levels of emission entitlement for everyone on the global at a certain time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
