|
It's not just about reduction or clean up but about prevention as well. It's good policy in my opinion.
But, the reason why China and India should want to be on board (yes I know this is normative) is because quite simply, environmental issues are finite in the sense that they also desire clean air and clean water as well as satisfying energy and consumption demands. Resources are limited.
EX: If you insist on chopping down the forest for subsistence, sooner or later there will be no forest left to chop down. Then what? Now, I'm actually not opposed to chopping down the forest, I'm for a good, practical policy that makes sense (i.e - planting trees and rotation).
It's the same with fishing (and rights). Why kill your own industry by overfishing and polluting to depletion? It makes no sense. It's like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
So, in relation to emissions, if we are to believe that there are certain costs associated with poor air quality, then you have a quantifiable measure to evaluate the cost benefit of implementing an environmental policy such as the Kyoto Protocol.
For example, in LA, poor air quality has been shown to reduce worker productivity and contribute to the rising costs of healthcare. (Sorry guys, I don't have the report reference handy and I'm too lazy to google). It would seem that reducing emissions and the associated costs would yield real tangible benefits.
Therefore, if India and China were to look at their enormous populations and the task of providing an environment or infrastructure, clothing, feeding, employing, etc, they would see that a long term plan would be necessary to maintain stability and prosperity. Short term benefits are politically popular but may not be the best solution for the state. By planning for the long term, they can ensure some stability, prosperity and balance for their respective populations.
|