Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aKula
Developed countries account for three quarters of the world's greenhouse gas emissions while constitutuing one quater of the world's population.
http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou.../items/278.php
If each country were given a quota of allowable emissions based on population (rather than 1990 emission levels), then developed countries would currently be far in excess of this quota, while India for example, would only use one third of it's quota. This extra share could then be sold off to developed countries that are above their quota. If this were the case then the developed world would be hit far harder than is the case under the current kyoto protocol.
Developed countries have created the problem by their emissions over the last 2 centuries, following the "polluter pays principle" (whoever broke it, should fix it) these countries should contribute the most in fixing the problem.
Developed countries are more in need of an increase in emissions to improve their standard of living (to escape poverty), while an increase in emissions in an industialised country only leads to an unessecary, and unsustainable increase in the standard of living.
The Kyoto Protocol ensures the first steps are taken to reducing the enhanced greenhouse effect, and does so in a way which goes easy on developed countries.
reference: Peter Singer and Tom Gregg, How Ethical is Australia?, 2004 |
aKula,
This is a well constructed argument and I will second it. Some sort of paragmatism should be in order. China and India most certainly should not be left off the hook. They have exhibited strong desire to be global leaders - with leadership comes responsbility and they should have seized this chance to "one up" the US by taking the lead on this.
A good sound environmental policy doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. I believe it can be mutually beneficial. World Bank IMF should offer great incentives in capital investiture in environmentally-friendly infrastructure. In other words, try and take the "it costs too much" argument away.
I don't know about global warming but I do have enough common sense to not "pee & poop" in the drinking water. We should all do our part in creating a clean and safer environment to live in.
In LA, the latest studies have shown the pollution as being a primary contributor, source of asthma in children contributing to skyrocketing health costs and sick days which reduce funding in our schools. (Funding for schools in LA are based on attendance due to delinquency problem) One could argue, that hurts our economy. Many times a year, the pollution shuts down our famous beaches hurting the tourism economy. Economic costs can go both ways.
The main problem is that politicians and human beings in general are tied to the short term. We are remarkably weak and unwilling to plan for the future. A common sense approach to a "green earth" policy should not be a pariah in this country nor should it be a dirty word.