What Is The Goal Of The Copenhagen Climate Conference?

[WildCat]

Is the goal of the Copenhagen climate change conference to halt and lower the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, or is it an effort to exact a measure of social justice on wealthy nations to redistribute wealth to the rest?

The question arises because the math is quite clear: humans, according to this month's National Geographic, are pumping 9.1 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, while the earth can only absorb 5 billion metric tons per year. What's not clear is the atmospheric level of CO2 which will warm the planet, estimates range from 350 ppm to 450 ppm. We're at 385 ppm now, and at current rates we are increasing this concentration by 2-3 ppm every year. So we may already be at the tipping point, and we will surpass even the best-case scenario tipping point by mid-century. And bear in mind that even if we stopped carbon emissions entirely today it would take centuries for the atmospheric levels to get back down to 350 ppm.

So why should countries like China and India and other developing nations get a pass? If the rest of the world decreases their emissions by 4 billion tons, but the "developing" (in scare quotes because China is pushing the definition at this point) nations increase theirs by the same amount, we are still marching blissfully towards disaster at the same rate as before, and the problem can hardly be declared solved.

Too much, IMHO, is being made of percentages, and per-capita carbon emissions, when all that really matters is the total numbers.

To add to the mess, the goal of many participants doesn't appear to be stopping AGW, but "justice". They demand cold, hard cash from the rich nations to atone for their sins in the past. The problem is, the past is a sunk cost. We can't go back in time to stop the Industrial Revolution and prevent the emissions from the past from polluting our atmosphere in the present. Cash alone cannot solve this problem, only a global reduction of 4.1 billion metric tons of carbon emissions per year will. And it cannot be done by rich nations alone, particularly when developing nations containing the bulk of the world's population are catching up rapidly.

What I fear is that Copenhagen will dissolve into a series of compromises aimed more at justice and fairness that won't actually result in reducing global carbon emissions by 4.1 billion tons until it's too late to matter. A triumph of symbolism over substance, so we can feel good about ourselves while disaster looms.

And that would be tragic.

[Puppycow]

Initial reports do not seem encouraging.

Developing Countries Say ‘No Money, No Deal’ in Climate Talks (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqC.iVBrBGT8&pos=8)

Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Four days before 110 world leaders fly to Copenhagen to complete a deal to curb global warming, negotiators are far apart on aid to poorer countries and how to verify nations fulfill their pledges to reduce greenhouse gases.

Envoys from 192 countries discussing a climate-protection accord in the Danish capital released a draft on Dec. 11 that shows they cannot agree on how to police an agreement. The document contains no subsidies to help developing nations cut carbon-dioxide emissions and adapt to climate change.

There's a very basic issue of trust here. The idea of sending hundreds of billions of dollars to developing countries every year seems like a political non-starter. If we can't even be sure that it will have the intended effect, it seems even more unlikely. I'm imaging all kinds of scams to get that money without sacrificing anything real.

Carbon trading fraud accounts for 90pc of all market activity in Europe. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6778003/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Carbon-trading-fraudsters-in-Europe-pocket-5bn.html)

Why would we expect better compliance than this?

What we could do instead is for the developed countries to introduce carbon taxes, and subsidize the development and export of green technologies. I don't see the problem being solved by public policy alone. New and improved technologies are needed.

[Puppycow]

For many, the goal seems to be to get on the news somehow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/6789041/Copenhagen-climate-change-conference-protests-and-art-installations.html).

[Puppycow]

China and U.S. Hit Strident Impasse at Climate Talks (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/earth/15climate.html?hp)

COPENHAGEN — China and the United States were at an impasse on Monday at the United Nations climate change conference here over how compliance with any treaty could be monitored and verified.

China, which last month for the first time publicly announced a target for reducing the rate of growth of its greenhouse gas emissions, is refusing to accept any kind of international monitoring of its emissions levels, according to negotiators and observers here. The United States is insisting that without stringent verification of China’s actions, it cannot support any deal.
. . .
Negotiators for the United States and China have been trading public accusations in recent days and making little progress in negotiations on the critical issue of treaty compliance.

Chinese negotiators have said little during formal negotiation sessions here, where they have been working in partnership with the developing countries. They have made clear that they do not expect money from the industrial powers to help make the shift to a more energy-efficient economy.

But they will not accept any outside monitors to ensure that they are indeed making the changes that they have promised to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants emitted per unit of economic output.

“I think there’s no doubt that China, when it says 40 to 45 percent reduction in energy intensity, is serious about that,” said Ed Miliband, the British secretary of state for energy and climate change. “The more challenging hurdle is finding a formula for ensuring the outside world that an avoided ton of gas is in fact a ton.”

He Yafei, the Chinese vice foreign minister, said China’s laws would guarantee compliance.

“This is a matter of principle,” even if it scuttles the talks, he said in an interview with The Financial Times.

On the plus side, China does not expect money, but on the other hand they say "Just trust us."

Thing is, instead of money, they get to continue to be factory for the world and enjoy the benefits of WTO membership, while keeping their currency pegged low and preventing verification.

[Skeptic]

The goal is to save the planet as long as some other country pays for it.

[Bill Thompson]

There were pictures of protests in Copenhagen.

Some people actually got arrested.

Exactly what are they protesting?

I wonder what someone has to do to get arrested at a climate change conference.

It is as if there is a peace rally and people protest because there is not enough peace at the peace rally and they set out to get arrested even if it means getting violent.

The human species is a stupid one.

[Darth Rotor]

The human species is a stupid one.
There are some self correcting behaviors embedded in the stupid, ya know. For example, fallout laced snow thins the heard ... :cool:

[Bill Thompson]

There are some self correcting behaviors embedded in the stupid, ya know. For example, fallout laced snow thins the heard ... :cool:

And this has something to do with this topic how? Dude, if I started one discussion thread where I was against the war in Afganistan and then I started another one, just for fun, where I presented the argument that the war in Afganistan was justified, could you handle it? WOuld you jump from one thread to the other and get lost?

There were pictures of protests in Copenhagen where some people actually got arrested.

Exactly what are they protesting?

I wonder what someone has to do to get arrested at a climate change conference.

It is as if there is a peace rally and people protest because there is not enough peace at the peace rally and they set out to get arrested even if it means getting violent.

The human species is a stupid one. Seriously, what are these people protesting? My theory is that they are protesting for the sake of protesting. It does not matter what they are protesting. They are out for the thrill of convincing themselves that they are important.

[Praktik]

I thought the goal was One World Government...

[lomiller]

Ok, we’ve been through this before. Developing nations are not “getting a pass” people living in developing nations simply don’t compare to developed nations in terms of the CO2 they emit.

If you want a cap that hits developing nations and applied that same cap to the US you would be looking at CO2 reductions >75% instead of the measly 10% - 20% even then most optimistic goals for Copenhagen are looking for.

I know from our previous discussion on this you believe that people living in the US have some fundamental right to emit more CO2 then anyone else. Where you get this notion from I have no idea, but the fact you possess it is clear from your posts.

[WildCat]

Ok, we’ve been through this before. Developing nations are not “getting a pass” people living in developing nations simply don’t compare to developed nations in terms of the CO2 they emit.

If you want a cap that hits developing nations and applied that same cap to the US you would be looking at CO2 reductions >75% instead of the measly 10% - 20% even then most optimistic goals for Copenhagen are looking for.

I know from our previous discussion on this you believe that people living in the US have some fundamental right to emit more CO2 then anyone else. Where you get this notion from I have no idea, but the fact you possess it is clear from your posts.
And the point continues to fly right over your head.

Crunch the numbers in the OP lomiller. Climate change is a math problem, not a political one.

Copenhagen is turning out to be almost entirely political. Ergo, AGW is taking a back seat to "social justice".

[Praktik]

I love how the term "social justice" has recently come into the right-wing echo chamber.

Everytime I see a poster like Wildcat use the term I imagine them saying it in the same tone of voice one would use to say "you left your soiled undies on my pillow". Or, the same tone of voice they'd use to say the word "liberal". Which works out the be about the same intonation I guess.;)

Wildcat wasn't harping this, I think it mighta been mhaze, but for many on the right "social justice" has become a synonym for communism...

if you search Glenn Beck broadcasts you'll notice its been a frequent reference in recent months.

[WildCat]

I love how the term "social justice" has recently come into the right-wing echo chamber.

Everytime I see a poster like Wildcat use the term I imagine them saying it in the same tone of voice one would use to say "you left your soiled undies on my pillow". Or, the same tone of voice they'd use to say the word "liberal". Which works out the be about the same intonation I guess.;)

Wildcat wasn't harping this, I think it mighta been mhaze, but for many on the right "social justice" has become a synonym for communism...

if you search Glenn Beck broadcasts you'll notice its been a frequent reference in recent months.
I used the word mainly because of the protestors carrying signs calling for "justice". It's also echoed by some in the conference. When the goal becomes "justice" rather than solving AGW we've lost the plot.

[Bill Thompson]

I thought the goal was One World Government...

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[INRM]

PuppyCow,

China and U.S. Hit Strident Impasse at Climate Talks (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/earth/15climate.html?hp)



On the plus side, China does not expect money, but on the other hand they say "Just trust us."

Thing is, instead of money, they get to continue to be factory for the world and enjoy the benefits of WTO membership, while keeping their currency pegged low and preventing verification.


That sounds very bad. How do they plan to monitor compliance? Easily, put satellites to monitor every surface of earth. Of course that would be completely against any concept of a free-society...

[Praktik]

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

As an NWO shill, I of course think its the cat's pajamas...

[ThatSoundAgain]

There were pictures of protests in Copenhagen where some people actually got arrested.

Exactly what are they protesting?


It's pretty easy to look up, you know. Here's the home page (http://12dec09.dk/content/english) and here's the call to demonstration (http://www.12dec09.dk/arkiv/20091018_platform_of_12dec09_initiative.rtf).

Their own summary:

Aims:
In Denmark:
To carry out a peaceful demonstration with tens of thousands of participants representing a broad spectrum of people from Denmark and around the world. To call on world leaders to take urgent actions on climate change and show that climate issues have broad public interest.

Further,

The 'Call to Action' for the demonstrations is as follows: “We demand that world leaders take the urgent and resolute action needed to prevent the catastrophic destabilization of the global climate, so that the entire world can move as rapidly as possible to a stronger emissions reductions treaty that will be effective in minimizing dangerous climate change while maintaining principles of social and global justice.
We demand that those industrialized countries that have emitted most greenhouse gases take responsibility for climate change mitigation by immediately reducing their own emissions while investing in a clean energy revolution in the developing world. Developed countries must take their fair share of the responsibility in paying for the adaptive measures that have to be taken, especially by low-emitting countries with limited economic resources.
Climate change will hit the poorest first, and hit them hardest. All those who have the economic means to act therefore must do so urgently and decisively.”

So, from their own words it wasn't as much a protest march as it was a manifestation of interest from the public at large. To the extent that they were protesting something, it would be the seeming inability to get to a binding treaty, not just a wishy-washy non-binding statement, and the first world countries not doing enough.

I wonder what someone has to do to get arrested at a climate change conference.

In most cases, be present, march, carry a placard, or shout / chant / sing.

In a few cases, wreck something or throw stuff at the police.

[Cavemonster]

I used the word mainly because of the protestors carrying signs calling for "justice".

Wait a sec.
You're using the words spoken by protesters outside a conference as evidence or a reflection of what's going on inside the conference?

In that case, the RNC, WTO, and pretty much every large conference since the 60s has also been about social justice.

[A.A. Alfie]

I love how the term "social justice" has recently come into the right-wing echo chamber.

Everytime I see a poster like Wildcat use the term I imagine them saying it in the same tone of voice one would use to say "you left your soiled undies on my pillow". Or, the same tone of voice they'd use to say the word "liberal". Which works out the be about the same intonation I guess.;)

Wildcat wasn't harping this, I think it mighta been mhaze, but for many on the right "social justice" has become a synonym for communism...

if you search Glenn Beck broadcasts you'll notice its been a frequent reference in recent months.

Some interesting observations and deductions, but hardly evidence of what you are saying.

Some may have taken it up as an objection to communism (or the like) and that's a bit sad imho. But to tar everyone with that same brush is a bit unfair too. The term has been around for nearly 200 years .

What is it they exactly 'they' are after when asking for first world govts to give hand outs to developing nations, what of the "no borders" chants etc.

Is there a generic term that you would like used for them? If so, please share.
:)

[Puppycow]

PuppyCow,




That sounds very bad. How do they plan to monitor compliance? Easily, put satellites to monitor every surface of earth. Of course that would be completely against any concept of a free-society...

We already have spy satellites.

Could satellites monitor CO2 emissions? Perhaps they can. I hadn't thought of that.

[Puppycow]

Climate Talks Near Deal on Preservation of Forests (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/science/earth/16forest.html?_r=1&hp)

Hey, something most of us can agree on, I think.
This would be a worthy goal even if GW weren't real.

COPENHAGEN — Negotiators have all but completed a sweeping deal that would compensate countries for preserving forests and in some cases other natural landscapes like peat soils, swamps and fields that play a crucial role in curbing climate change.

Environmental groups have long advocated such a compensation program because forests are efficient absorbers of carbon dioxide, the primary heat-trapping gas linked to global warming. Rain forest destruction, which releases the carbon dioxide stored in trees, is estimated to account for 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally.

The agreement for the program, once signed, may turn out to be the most significant achievement to come out of the Copenhagen climate talks, providing a system through which countries can be paid for conserving disappearing natural assets based on their contribution to reducing emissions.
. . .
“It is likely to be the most concrete thing that comes out of Copenhagen — and it is a very big thing,” Fred Krupp, head of the Environmental Defense Fund. :clap:

[Roma]

According to the Coast to Coast program last night the conference has absolutley nothing to do with climate change and is actually designed to create a World Government.
After the U.S. signs on they will forever be under the complete control of the New World Order http://www.topsmileys.net/smilies/evilgrin0002.gif (http://www.topsmileys.net)

"The Copenhagen Climate Control Treaty being finalized this week is another move toward world control that will enforce crippling constraints on nations," warned Coast to Coast guest Grant R. Jeffrey.

Personally I don't know what the goal of the conference is and I'm so pessimistic that I don't believe anything that anyone says to me anymore http://www.topsmileys.net/smilies/scared0016.gif (http://www.topsmileys.net)

[WildCat]

Some interesting observations and deductions, but hardly evidence of what you are saying.

Some may have taken it up as an objection to communism (or the like) and that's a bit sad imho. But to tar everyone with that same brush is a bit unfair too. The term has been around for nearly 200 years .

What is it they exactly 'they' are after when asking for first world govts to give hand outs to developing nations, what of the "no borders" chants etc.

Is there a generic term that you would like used for them? If so, please share.
:)
See the math in the OP?

Do you see anything in Copenhagen that commits to reducing global carbon emissions by 4.1 billion tons annually? That's what it will take just to stabilize the amount of CO2 in the air.

The numbers don't care where the carbon comes from, or percentages of some arbitrary date for some countries.

All that matters is reducing global carbon emissions by 4.1 billion tons annually, and it's nowhere to be found so far at Copenhagen.

[A.A. Alfie]

Climate Talks Near Deal on Preservation of Forests (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/science/earth/16forest.html?_r=1&hp)

Hey, something most of us can agree on, I think.
This would be a worthy goal even if GW weren't real.

:clap:

Good idea.
Who pays this compensation?

See the math in the OP?

Do you see anything in Copenhagen that commits to reducing global carbon emissions by 4.1 billion tons annually? That's what it will take just to stabilize the amount of CO2 in the air.

The numbers don't care where the carbon comes from, or percentages of some arbitrary date for some countries.

All that matters is reducing global carbon emissions by 4.1 billion tons annually, and it's nowhere to be found so far at Copenhagen.

Umm, did that answer the question?

[WildCat]

Umm, did that answer the question?
If they're not addressing AGW, what are they addressing?

[A.A. Alfie]

If they're not addressing AGW, what are they addressing?

No. I though you (we) were discussing the term social justice.

[Kevin_Lowe]

So why should countries like China and India and other developing nations get a pass?

Because the existing oversupply of CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't put there by them, it was put there by the nations who industrialised first and who are currently sitting pretty on the economic and military advantages that gave them.

[Skeptic]

Frankly, I am suspicious of such schemes. Not because of their goals, but because in reality paying, say, Brazil "to conserve forests" really means paying some rich politicians there to let poor people starve -- or just to lie and say forests are conserved when they're not.

There are of course ways to preserve forests AND to also help the population that needs arable land. That is probably the intent of the program. But they often don't get done.

[A.A. Alfie]

Seems the purpose of the conference might be to take the piss out of some scientists.
Or to test the size of one's cahounas.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/polar-bear-phil-jones/

To a chorus of boos, a man dressed as a polar bear entered Copenhagen's main conference center Tuesday and began paging the discredited climate scientist whose hacked e-mails sparked the Climate-Gate scandal.

Using a megaphone to pierce the rumble of hundreds gathered inside the Bella Center, which is hosting the city's global climate summit, the polar bear boomed out:

"PHIL JONES??? HAS ANYONE SEEN PHIL JONES???"

[WildCat]

No. I though you (we) were discussing the term social justice.
I thought we were discussing what the goals of the Copenhagen conference is.

Because the existing oversupply of CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't put there by them, it was put there by the nations who industrialised first and who are currently .
It's a sunk cost. Unless you have a time machine and can transport everyone back to the 17th century for a do-over that CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Allowing developing countries to "catch up" is slamming the door to the barn after the horse has ran out, gone wild, and had little horses. Any comments on the math on the OP Kevin?

And "sitting pretty on the economic and military advantages that gave them" sounds suspiciously like someone more concerned with "social justice" than AGW.

[daenku32]

Too much, IMHO, is being made of percentages, and per-capita carbon emissions, when all that really matters is the total numbers.

Per-capita is the only fair way to judge national CO2 emissions. Otherwise you are demanding that someone in China or India forgo hot water so that you can continue to drive your less-than-fuel-efficient car, in order to maintain current levels.

According to Google graphs, the world average per capita emissions of CO2 are at 4.5 tons. The US average is at 19.5. If the intent is to limit global CO2 emissions to an exact number, you have to take that number and divide it with total world population to determine how much each nation should be able to emit.

Just for comparison, you can look at CO2 per-capita emissions of Germany vs US to see how much more carbon footprint we as a developed nation emit compared to an equally developed nation.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:USA&q=US+per+capita+CO2+emissions#met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:USA:DEU&tdim=true

[Skeptic]

I think I am not the only one who would look favorably at the first world helping the third word with money to achieve certain goals, but suspicious that, like most of the trillions sunk into the third world in the past, it would just be stolen, wasted, or skimmed off the top to no good purpose.

It is practically certain that any money earmarked by the rich nations to save the rain forests in poor nations will end up, not helping the rain forests, but helping the Swiss bank accounts of various dictators-for-life's cousins and in-laws. It's going to be the usual bait-and-switch, with poor people in rich countries (through taxes) helping rich people in poor countries.

India and South Korea -- to name two -- were just as poor as Africa and the Arab world in 1950. Now, and for a long time, they are on their way up. Why? Because they have stable, elected governments, a free press, free elections, and a free economy. Have that, and people will help themselves. You don't have that, and people will be beggars forever.

If India were to promise to use the money from the West for conservation, there's at least a good chance that it would indeed be so used. But the Congo? Sudan? Indonesia? Might as well transfer the money straight to the leaders' bank accounts and save the paperwork.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's a sunk cost. Unless you have a time machine and can transport everyone back to the 17th century for a do-over that CO2 remains in the atmosphere. Allowing developing countries to "catch up" is slamming the door to the barn after the horse has ran out, gone wild, and had little horses. Any comments on the math on the OP Kevin?

Argument by cliche isn't an argument.


And "sitting pretty on the economic and military advantages that gave them" sounds suspiciously like someone more concerned with "social justice" than AGW.

You clean up your own mess. If you think calling that "social justice" discredits it, you're welcome to call it that.

[tyr_13]

You clean up your own mess. If you think calling that "social justice" discredits it, you're welcome to call it that.

No. This is an obnoxiously stupid thing to say. Your own mess? Grow up. It's everyone's mess. The rice farmer in China didn't build a coal plant and cut down a forest, but then again, neither did I.

Yes, the first world needs to do a lot to help solve this problem. I don't believe anyone is saying otherwise. What is being said is that so does everyone else. Nonsense exemptions based on wealth are going to destroy the process. We need to help devolving nations bring up their standards of living in ways that don't increase global warming. This means that these nations should be equally restricted.

[Beerina]

What Is The Goal Of The Copenhagen Climate Conference?

To posture in front of the cameras for the purpose of getting re-elected back home, aiding in spreading that meme.


Oh, wait. You probably meant what's the goal in the memeplex inside your head. Sorry. My bad.

[geni]

Is the goal of the Copenhagen climate change conference to halt and lower the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, or is it an effort to exact a measure of social justice on wealthy nations to redistribute wealth to the rest?

No. It aim is to reduce the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere to the lowest acceptable level. The aim is then to use that as a base for further reductions.


The question arises because the math is quite clear: humans, according to this month's National Geographic, are pumping 9.1 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, while the earth can only absorb 5 billion metric tons per year. What's not clear is the atmospheric level of CO2 which will warm the planet, estimates range from 350 ppm to 450 ppm. We're at 385 ppm now, and at current rates we are increasing this concentration by 2-3 ppm every year. So we may already be at the tipping point, and we will surpass even the best-case scenario tipping point by mid-century. And bear in mind that even if we stopped carbon emissions entirely today it would take centuries for the atmospheric levels to get back down to 350 ppm.

So why should countries like China and India and other developing nations get a pass? If the rest of the world decreases their emissions by 4 billion tons, but the "developing" (in scare quotes because China is pushing the definition at this point) nations increase theirs by the same amount, we are still marching blissfully towards disaster at the same rate as before, and the problem can hardly be declared solved.

Too much, IMHO, is being made of percentages, and per-capita carbon emissions, when all that really matters is the total numbers.

Per-capita carbon emissions are the only practical way of spreading cuts around. It's not practical to say to india that they can't lift anymore people out of subsistence farming without first comeing up with a way to do it without kicking out more CO2.


To add to the mess, the goal of many participants doesn't appear to be stopping AGW, but "justice". They demand cold, hard cash from the rich nations to atone for their sins in the past. The problem is, the past is a sunk cost. We can't go back in time to stop the Industrial Revolution and prevent the emissions from the past from polluting our atmosphere in the present. Cash alone cannot solve this problem, only a global reduction of 4.1 billion metric tons of carbon emissions per year will. And it cannot be done by rich nations alone, particularly when developing nations containing the bulk of the world's population are catching up rapidly.

It's not a sunk cost since developed nation emissions are ongoing. Still lets see what happens if we stop the developing nations from catching up. Everyone agrees zero extra emissions. You would be looking at the US, EU and Japan pulling off 0.37% cuts to reach your target. Is that acceptable to you?


What I fear is that Copenhagen will dissolve into a series of compromises aimed more at justice and fairness that won't actually result in reducing global carbon emissions by 4.1 billion tons until it's too late to matter. A triumph of symbolism over substance, so we can feel good about ourselves while disaster looms.

And that would be tragic.

There are other potential tipping points down the line which would also be useful to counter.

[INRM]

Puppycow,

I know we already have spy satellites. What I'm saying is that I would not be surprised if this treaty was used to justify putting up more satellites into orbit. Of course it would be "just for monitoring CO2" levels.

[Bill Thompson]

Why exactly are people protesting it?

[WildCat]

Per-capita is the only fair way to judge national CO2 emissions. Otherwise you are demanding that someone in China or India forgo hot water so that you can continue to drive your less-than-fuel-efficient car, in order to maintain current levels.

According to Google graphs, the world average per capita emissions of CO2 are at 4.5 tons. The US average is at 19.5. If the intent is to limit global CO2 emissions to an exact number, you have to take that number and divide it with total world population to determine how much each nation should be able to emit.

Just for comparison, you can look at CO2 per-capita emissions of Germany vs US to see how much more carbon footprint we as a developed nation emit compared to an equally developed nation.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:USA&q=US+per+capita+CO2+emissions#met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:USA:DEU&tdim=true
It's not as simple as the formula you suggest. Germany has a much higher population density than the US. They don't have to travel as far to go to work, they have more public transportation options. Look at the big drop in 1990, it's not because of anything they did for the environment it's because the wall came down and all the DDR factories which couldn't compete in a free market shut down. They also benefit from a milder climate, warmer winters and cooler summers mean much less energy for heating and cooling. Agriculture is a big source of emissions (13.5% world wide), and Germany has fewer hectares of cultivated land per capita. But people have to eat. Germany's (seemingly) perpetual 10% unemployment rate also helps. Someone who doesn't commute doesn't emit as much CO2. I'd bet if that chart went to 2009 you'd see a big dip in US CO2 emissions for that very reason.

Certainly, the US could do much more. I'd like to see all the coal plants shut down and replaced by nuclear power, which is nearly as cheap and emits no greenhouse gasses. It would be nice if an agreement was reached which forces this to be so, but alas I doubt it. Frankly, I'd be shocked if the US Senate even ratified any agreement reached in Copenhagen, given the state of the economy.

I'd like to see more people commute via trains and buses, but most of the US simply can't support that because the population density just isn't there. Even where it is sufficient public transportation bleeds money. The CTA here loses $7 per ride for example, and is constantly begging for ever more tax dollars that the legislature is reluctant to give them.

But the main problem is still the math in the OP - we are putting too much CO2 in the atmosphere. And I really don't see how we can reduce that in the current global political climate.

[WildCat]

Argument by cliche isn't an argument.
What cliche? The CO2 is in the atmosphere. It's not going to be turned back to coal or petroleum for several million years.

You clean up your own mess. If you think calling that "social justice" discredits it, you're welcome to call it that.
Cal it whatever you want, but that's what you are arguing.

And there's no known technology to "clean up the mess".

[geni]

It's not as simple as the formula you suggest. Germany has a much higher population density than the US.

Something of a red herring. The fact is most americans don't need to travel even to a different state with any regularity. The driving factor for differences in distances traveled has less to do with overall population densitities and more to do with most european countries trying to control urban sprawl over the last few decades.

[WildCat]

Something of a red herring. The fact is most americans don't need to travel even to a different state with any regularity. The driving factor for differences in distances traveled has less to do with overall population densitities and more to do with most european countries trying to control urban sprawl over the last few decades.
There'd be far less urban sprawl in the US if big-city schools were capable of educating children. Everyone I know who left the city for the suburbs did so because their children were reaching school age. No rational person would send their child to a Chicago Public School (unless they literally win the lottery to get them in a charter school), and few have $6,000 a year to send them to a private school.

The same is true in just about any big city in America.

eta: and you'd be surprised how often Americans travel to other states. We're a mobile bunch, with family spread all over the place.

[Kevin_Lowe]

No. This is an obnoxiously stupid thing to say. Your own mess? Grow up. It's everyone's mess. The rice farmer in China didn't build a coal plant and cut down a forest, but then again, neither did I.

No you didn't, but you're living in the politically, technologically and militarily dominant enclave we call the First World which bootstrapped itself into its position of dominance by industrialising first and exploiting the bulk of the easily-obtainable fossil fuel supplies on the planet first.

We're currently enjoying the very great benefits of living in the societies that burned the fossil fuels to get where they are. The excess CO2 in the atmosphere was primarily put there by the First World nations and we're still enjoying the benefits of having put it there.

It seems eminently reasonable to me that since our current wealth came from putting that CO2 in the atmosphere we redirect at least some of that wealth into mitigating the harm done by it.

[A.A. Alfie]

No you didn't, but you're living in the politically, technologically and militarily dominant enclave we call the First World which bootstrapped itself into its position of dominance by industrialising first and exploiting the bulk of the easily-obtainable fossil fuel supplies on the planet first.

We're currently enjoying the very great benefits of living in the societies that burned the fossil fuels to get where they are. The excess CO2 in the atmosphere was primarily put there by the First World nations and we're still enjoying the benefits of having put it there.

It seems eminently reasonable to me that since our current wealth came from putting that CO2 in the atmosphere we redirect at least some of that wealth into mitigating the harm done by it.

I disagree.
Even if AGW via C02 is a factor, it is not the only one in play.

The first world, by and large paid for their wealth through hard work, some luck, investment, etc, but most of all stable government and a democratic (or free) approach towards how it's people go about their lives.

Someone cottectly said earlier that if we simply hand over money to some third world governments now, the same thing will happen to much of the aid that has been handed over in the past - their dictators and/or corrupt goverments will line their own pockets, with very little - if any - getting to where it is needed most.

Much of what is being proposed is about seeming to do good, without actually doing good.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I disagree.
Even if AGW via C02 is a factor, it is not the only one in play.

What other factors are you thinking of that might put an equal responsibility on the Third World, and what is your evidence?


The first world, by and large paid for their wealth through hard work, some luck, investment, etc, but most of all stable government and a democratic (or free) approach towards how it's people go about their lives.

Okay then, since oil and coal don't matter we'll just give them up entirely right now and be no worse off. After all, it's hard work, some luck, investment, stable government and a democratic (or free) approach towards how people go about their lives that made us wealthy, not fossil fuels.

Yes, that was sarcasm.


Someone cottectly said earlier that if we simply hand over money to some third world governments now, the same thing will happen to much of the aid that has been handed over in the past - their dictators and/or corrupt goverments will line their own pockets, with very little - if any - getting to where it is needed most.

That's a valid concern but it's entirely separate from whether the First World has a moral obligation to shoulder the bulk of the burden of keeping CO2 down to tolerable levels.

It's at least philosophically possible that we should shoulder that burden but it's actually impossible to do so because everyone in the Third World is totally corrupt and/or stupid. I don't think it's true, but if you show me the evidence I'll look at it. "Everybody knows!" is not evidence, by the way, before you try that one.

[A.A. Alfie]

What other factors are you thinking of that might put an equal responsibility on the Third World, and what is your evidence?.

Hnag on. Different topic altogether. I was responding to your comment that we have a responsibility because we have been the primary users of fossil fuels and this caused the the sky to start falling. You also inferred that it was only due to these fossil fuels that we were rich and because of our greed, we owe the rest of the world.
I am simply pointing out there are other factors involved with success other than the use of fossil fuels.

Do you agree with that?

Okay then, since oil and coal don't matter we'll just give them up entirely right now and be no worse off. After all, it's hard work, some luck, investment, stable government and a democratic (or free) approach towards how people go about their lives that made us wealthy, not fossil fuels?

Yes, that was sarcasm.

No, that was dishonest.

That's a valid concern but it's entirely separate from whether the First World has a moral obligation to shoulder the bulk of the burden of keeping CO2 down to tolerable levels.

It's at least philosophically possible that we should shoulder that burden but it's actually impossible to do so because everyone in the Third World is totally corrupt and/or stupid. I don't think it's true, but if you show me the evidence I'll look at it.

You may be right about a philosophical burden, but it is a separate issue as you point out.
You might have to show me where I said that "all people" in the third world are totally corrupt or "stupid" (more dishonesty). As you concede, it is a concern - not the only concern - but a fairly big one.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hnag on. Different topic altogether. I was responding to your comment that we have a responsibility because we have been the primary users of fossil fuels and this caused the the sky to start falling. You also inferred that it was only due to these fossil fuels that we were rich and because of our greed, we owe the rest of the world.
I am simply pointing out there are other factors involved with success other than the use of fossil fuels.

What follows from this claim of yours? I don't see how it in any way diminishes the responsibility of the people who have benefited from putting that CO2 into the atmosphere to take a proportional role in minimising the damage.


You may be right about a philosophical burden, but it is a separate issue as you point out.
You might have to show me where I said that "all people" in the third world are totally corrupt or "stupid" (more dishonesty). As you concede, it is a concern - not the only concern - but a fairly big one.

Are you going to defend your claim at all? Preferably with some kind of hard figures?

[tyr_13]

No you didn't, but you're living in the politically, technologically and militarily dominant enclave we call the First World which bootstrapped itself into its position of dominance by industrialising first and exploiting the bulk of the easily-obtainable fossil fuel supplies on the planet first.

We're currently enjoying the very great benefits of living in the societies that burned the fossil fuels to get where they are. The excess CO2 in the atmosphere was primarily put there by the First World nations and we're still enjoying the benefits of having put it there.

It seems eminently reasonable to me that since our current wealth came from putting that CO2 in the atmosphere we redirect at least some of that wealth into mitigating the harm done by it.

Yes, all that is true. It's also true that if we don't restrict the developing world in some ways, in addition to helping it, then CO2 output will still increase.

There are other ways to help developing countries besides just giving them money to play nice as well. Trade them the tools of modern agriculture for the protection of forests maybe? How about investing in services that can be built in ways to meet the demands of locals in a more environmentally friendly way?

However, much of what you said is irrelevant to the science and to what needs to happen. The first world developing faster, and putting a lot of CO2 into the air in the process is not a reason to put wealth into mitigation. That is making the issue about 'justice' (although the type of 'justice' that punishes people for where they live). The reason to put wealth into the effort is that it needs done. Not only does self preservation dictate it, but the preservation of others. There is simply no need to toss about blame and judgment in the discussion.

Perhaps I've missed it, but where has someone suggested that the first world doesn't need to do anything to help?

[A.A. Alfie]

Are you going to defend your claim at all? Preferably with some kind of hard figures?

What claim?
The one you agreed was a "valid concern"?

[Kevin_Lowe]

What claim?
The one you agreed was a "valid concern"?

Yes. Lots of things are valid concerns but don't turn out to be serious.

Yes, all that is true. It's also true that if we don't restrict the developing world in some ways, in addition to helping it, then CO2 output will still increase.

There are other ways to help developing countries besides just giving them money to play nice as well. Trade them the tools of modern agriculture for the protection of forests maybe? How about investing in services that can be built in ways to meet the demands of locals in a more environmentally friendly way?

Sure, whatever solves the problem.


However, much of what you said is irrelevant to the science and to what needs to happen. The first world developing faster, and putting a lot of CO2 into the air in the process is not a reason to put wealth into mitigation. That is making the issue about 'justice' (although the type of 'justice' that punishes people for where they live).

It seems hypocritical to me to reap all the benefits of living in the First World civilizations we developed with fossil fuels, and then call it being "punished" if some of your tax dollars go towards fixing the harm our ramp-up is causing to people all around the world.


The reason to put wealth into the effort is that it needs done. Not only does self preservation dictate it, but the preservation of others. There is simply no need to toss about blame and judgment in the discussion.

What possible reason is there not to do both at once? Can't we fix the problem, but do so in a way that reflects the historical and scientific reality that the First World put most of the excess greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the first place?

[psychictv]

It's not as simple as the formula you suggest. Germany has a much higher population density than the US. They don't have to travel as far to go to work, they have more public transportation options.

Those are all our choices though. We could choose to voluntarily change all of those factors. But no, the people of the U.S. need their McMansions in the suburbs and their SUVs. We'll vote against public transportation measures any chance we get. We romanticize the idea of people living on big ranches way out in the boonies while demonizing cities and their inhabitants.

Our level of consumption is voluntary and it is the responsibility of every individual in the U.S. We should rightfully bear that responsibility per capita.

[geni]

I disagree.
Even if AGW via C02 is a factor, it is not the only one in play.

The first world, by and large paid for their wealth through hard work, some luck, investment, etc, but most of all stable government and a democratic (or free) approach towards how it's people go about their lives.

How quickly people forget the blood.

The first world was born in europe. Stable government and a democracy were limited factors. Heh the industrial revolution really got going in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars. You think that counts as stability and democracy? But already Europe had begun to turn to empire to fuel itself.

[Just thinking]

... you believe that people living in the US have some fundamental right to emit more CO2 then anyone else. Where you get this notion from I have no idea, but the fact you possess it is clear from your posts.

Perhaps it comes from the fact that the US is more responsible than any other nation for the betterment of the world.

It was the US that twice helped stop tyrannical powers from global conquests, and then forgave the financial debt that would have collapsed their economies. The US is responsible for developing many major vaccines to help prevent disease and save lives around the world ... many times at no cost to the beneficiaries. The world now benefits from the technology of the internet and computers that grew out of the US's efforts. And just who's airplanes supply many of the world's airlines?

Do you expect all of the above at no industrial cost?

But perhaps you're right, and I'm barking up the wrong tree ... in that you will never grasp the idea of why the US has this right, er ... obligation, to continue with its industry as long as the world wants what it produces.

[A.A. Alfie]

How quickly people forget the blood.

The first world was born in europe. Stable government and a democracy were limited factors. Heh the industrial revolution really got going in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars. You think that counts as stability and democracy? But already Europe had begun to turn to empire to fuel itself.

Fail.

The second industrial revolution started about 1850. This is the period from which most AGW proponents suggest the Co2 really began from what I can understand. The Napoleonic wars were well and truly over by then running from what 1790 to 1812?

[WildCat]

What possible reason is there not to do both at once? Can't we fix the problem, but do so in a way that reflects the historical and scientific reality that the First World put most of the excess greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the first place?
How does the problem get fixed if in 10 years there's still more CO2 being put into the atmosphere than the 5 billion metric tons per year the earth is capable of absorbing?

Unless, of course, you think "the problem" is wealth distribution and not AGW.

[WildCat]

Those are all our choices though. We could choose to voluntarily change all of those factors. But no, the people of the U.S. need their McMansions in the suburbs and their SUVs. We'll vote against public transportation measures any chance we get. We romanticize the idea of people living on big ranches way out in the boonies while demonizing cities and their inhabitants.
How big is Al Gore's house? How is the public transportation where he lives? If he's not willing to sacrafice, why should anyone else?


Why should I pay more taxes to 3rd world countries because Al Gore and his ilk live in real mansions, not just McMansions?

Our level of consumption is voluntary and it is the responsibility of every individual in the U.S. We should rightfully bear that responsibility per capita.As I already pointed out, there are many factors (such as agriculture) that don't scale well to per capita, and would cause problems elsewhere. Who should starve if the US eliminates 50% of its agricultural output, for example?

Who will be forced to send their kids to gang-infested poor-performing big city schools because suburban sprawl contributes to AGW?

Where do you live psychictv? How big is your family's house? When's the last time you rode a bus to work?

Are you walking the walk, or just talking the talk?

[geni]

Fail.

The second industrial revolution started about 1850.

The first world's advantage comes from the first industrial revolution.

Still in the 1850s the US was at war with various indian tribes and Europe had the Crimean War. There were also quite a collection of imperial wars. By 1850 europe was running on empire. Or do you really wish to claim britian gained nothing from the Second Burmese War, Second Opium War (heh now there was a good "investment") the indian part of the empire in general (Indian Mutiny started in 1857)?


Heh europe's internal wars don't really stop untill the 1870s and the Franco-Prussian War.

[WildCat]

The first world's advantage comes from the first industrial revolution.

Still in the 1850s the US was at war with various indian tribes and Europe had the Crimean War. There were also quite a collection of imperial wars. By 1850 europe was running on empire. Or do you really wish to claim britian gained nothing from the Second Burmese War, Second Opium War (heh now there was a good "investment") the indian part of the empire in general (Indian Mutiny started in 1857)?
Good point, perhaps European colonial powers should bear the brunt of the cost, it was they after all who created the 3rd world in the first place by carving up the world into colonies and drew up the unstable borders causing so many problems to this day.

Belgium alone is responsible for 15 million deaths in the last 15 years.

[Oliver]

Is the goal of the Copenhagen climate change conference to halt and lower the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, or is it an effort to exact a measure of social justice on wealthy nations to redistribute wealth to the rest?


The goal is to come to a consensus. Ever heard that term? :confused:

[WildCat]

The goal is to come to a consensus. Ever heard that term? :confused:
The international community, aiming low!

Maybe they should all just pat themselves on the back, tell each other how wonderful they are, and call it a success?

[Oliver]

The international community, aiming low!

Maybe they should all just pat themselves on the back, tell each other how wonderful they are, and call it a success?


Or maybe they should get all the facts provided by their own "Non-Gov-subsidized-Scientists" and act upon those??? :boggled:

[WildCat]

Or maybe they should get all the facts provided by their own "Non-Gov-subsidized-Scientists" and act upon those??? :boggled:
You mean reducing global CO2 emissions by at least 4.1 billion metric tons a year? Who in Copenhagen is even suggesting that as a solution?

All I see is percentages, when the raw numbers are all that matters as far as AGW is concerned.

If the first world reduces their CO2 emissions by 3 billion metric tons annually, but developing nations increase theirs by 5 billion metric tons annually, we haven't helped solve the problem. We've made it worse.

[AvalonXQ]

I'd like to see all the coal plants shut down

I'd rather not, considering how many Americans that would put out of work.

[WildCat]

I'd rather not, considering how many Americans that would put out of work.
This is why the Senate will not be ratifying any agreement Obama signs in Copenhagen.

[AvalonXQ]

This is why the Senate will not be ratifying any agreement Obama signs in Copenhagen.

Let's deal with our foreign oil dependency first, and our coal dependency second. After all, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

[Oliver]

You mean reducing global CO2 emissions by at least 4.1 billion metric tons a year? Who in Copenhagen is even suggesting that as a solution?

All I see is percentages, when the raw numbers are all that matters as far as AGW is concerned.

If the first world reduces their CO2 emissions by 3 billion metric tons annually, but developing nations increase theirs by 5 billion metric tons annually, we haven't helped solve the problem. We've made it worse.


Well, I was talking about reducing CO² emission worldwide by a specific margin based on a consensus. It does not matter how much CO² that is, what matters is that everyone agrees to reduce their emissions based on the consensus. Also, that has nothing to do with raw numbers since there are industrial countries that are able to reduce their emissions while there are underdeveloped countries that are not able to reduce their emissions. That's why a consensus would have to include subsidies for the countries who simply cannot afford CO² reduction.

[amb]

This talk fest will achieve absolutely zilch. When was the last time anything the United Nations was involved in was a success?
And why is it that despite some who claim the Earth is warming up the last decade has been the coolest for 90 years?
Is this climate change really due to mans activities or a natural event that occurs every couple of millenia? If it is human caused it is because of overpopulation methinks.
Then we have to follow China's lead and restrict couples to one or max. two children only not the dozens they now have in certain parts of the globe.

[Just thinking]

Does anyone here recall a series from the BBC with James Burke called Connections? More importantly ... does anyone recall the conclusion he reached at the end of the original series on what to do regarding technology and industrialization, with all its pluses and minuses?

[A.A. Alfie]

The first world's advantage comes from the first industrial revolution.

Still in the 1850s the US was at war with various indian tribes and Europe had the Crimean War. There were also quite a collection of imperial wars. By 1850 europe was running on empire. Or do you really wish to claim britian gained nothing from the Second Burmese War, Second Opium War (heh now there was a good "investment") the indian part of the empire in general (Indian Mutiny started in 1857)?


Heh europe's internal wars don't really stop untill the 1870s and the Franco-Prussian War.

I'm not going to argue about is as the point is moot at any rate. You did say the industrial revolution against the Napoleonic wars. I simply pointed out the error in that logic.

That said, the point I made was of stable governments. Are you going to suggest that the governments of say Britain or the US compare unfavourably against, say most African nations?

[Thunder]

Is the goal of the Copenhagen climate change conference to halt and lower the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, or is it an effort to exact a measure of social justice on wealthy nations to redistribute wealth to the rest?

the goal? to install a New World Order!!

:D

[Kevin_Lowe]

How does the problem get fixed if in 10 years there's still more CO2 being put into the atmosphere than the 5 billion metric tons per year the earth is capable of absorbing?

What's that got to do with what we were talking about? Did you think you could completely change the subject and nobody would notice?


Unless, of course, you think "the problem" is wealth distribution and not AGW.

You keep getting distracted by that straw man of yours. Leave it alone.

[Puppycow]

Frankly, I am suspicious of such schemes. Not because of their goals, but because in reality paying, say, Brazil "to conserve forests" really means paying some rich politicians there to let poor people starve -- or just to lie and say forests are conserved when they're not.

There are of course ways to preserve forests AND to also help the population that needs arable land. That is probably the intent of the program. But they often don't get done.

We can see with satellites whether forests are being preserved or not.

[Puppycow]

"Border Adjustments" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/earth/18trade.html) may be used to tax carbon on imports.

On the one hand, this would be like protectionism. On the other hand, it's probably one of the few levers available for compelling carbon reductions.

[Puppycow]

I think I am not the only one who would look favorably at the first world helping the third word with money to achieve certain goals, but suspicious that, like most of the trillions sunk into the third world in the past, it would just be stolen, wasted, or skimmed off the top to no good purpose.

If India were to promise to use the money from the West for conservation, there's at least a good chance that it would indeed be so used. But the Congo? Sudan? Indonesia? Might as well transfer the money straight to the leaders' bank accounts and save the paperwork.

I think you are right to be skeptical. I am skeptical too but for slightly different reasons. While it is possible to check with satellites whether forests are being preserved, I worry that this would create an incentive to start chopping down trees so that one can be paid to stop chopping down trees. Same theory as the farmers paid by the government to not grow food (or in the case of Afgahnistan, to not grow opium poppies). The only way you can be paid to not do something is to first prove that you will do that thing unless paid not to. In Afghanistan, the poppy growers were paid to stop, but the farmers who obeyed the law were not paid, so, observing that crime paid, they began to grow poppies too.

So I'm not unconcerned about the law of unintended consequences.

[tyr_13]

What possible reason is there not to do both at once? Can't we fix the problem, but do so in a way that reflects the historical and scientific reality that the First World put most of the excess greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the first place?

Because a lot of people who put the gasses there are dead for one. Trying to do both 'social justice' (which is exactly what you're advocating) while fixing the CO2 problem will drive people away. People can agree that we have to fix the CO2 problem, they can't agree that blame needs assigned and to whom.

The first world put a lot of it there. That doesn't address a single damn problem. Oh, and now that China and India are putting most of it there? What now?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Because a lot of people who put the gasses there are dead for one.

Look around you. Are you living in a straw hut in Africa? Or are you benefiting personally from the development of the First World civilizations that involved the use of all that CO2 in the atmosphere that was once fossil fuel?

If you in no way benefited from that CO2 then you'd have a case. As it is, you're trying to pretend you're taking the moral high ground by cheerfully grabbing all the benefits of that CO2 release and then denying any moral imperative to share the benefits you just grabbed with the people who are suffering because of that CO2 release.

[A.A. Alfie]

As it is, you're trying to pretend you're taking the moral high ground by cheerfully grabbing all the benefits of that CO2 release and then denying any moral imperative to share the benefits you just grabbed with the people who are suffering because of that CO2 release.

WTF!
What moral imperative is that?

[amb]

Look around you. Are you living in a straw hut in Africa? Or are you benefiting personally from the development of the First World civilizations that involved the use of all that CO2 in the atmosphere that was once fossil fuel?

If you in no way benefited from that CO2 then you'd have a case. As it is, you're trying to pretend you're taking the moral high ground by cheerfully grabbing all the benefits of that CO2 release and then denying any moral imperative to share the benefits you just grabbed with the people who are suffering because of that CO2 release.

And the answer is to transfer trillions of dollars from the first world to the third?

Socialism by stealth.

Look at some facts. The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 387 parts per million. Only twice in the past 600 million years has it gone below 400 ppm. Indeed, 450 million years ago there was an ice-age with a level of 4000ppm!
With these figures it seems to me that this B/S of climate change is an attempt for a new world order by our old friends the social engineers who mostly reside in the UN.

[WildCat]

What's that got to do with what we were talking about? Did you think you could completely change the subject and nobody would notice?
I'm pretty sure I know the subject at hand. What do you think about the math in the OP Kevin?


You keep getting distracted by that straw man of yours. Leave it alone.
Now I'm confused, you disregard the math, harp on what I'm calling "social justice" for lack of a better term, and now the points you made are a "strawman"? :boggled:

[geni]

I'm not going to argue about is as the point is moot at any rate. You did say the industrial revolution against the Napoleonic wars. I simply pointed out the error in that logic.

That said, the point I made was of stable governments. Are you going to suggest that the governments of say Britain or the US compare unfavourably against, say most African nations?

Depends whichs ones. However the US is a mayfly compared to china and even england has only been reasonably stable since 1485.

[WildCat]

Look around you. Are you living in a straw hut in Africa? Or are you benefiting personally from the development of the First World civilizations that involved the use of all that CO2 in the atmosphere that was once fossil fuel?
I though you said all this was a strawman Kevin?

If you in no way benefited from that CO2 then you'd have a case. As it is, you're trying to pretend you're taking the moral high ground by cheerfully grabbing all the benefits of that CO2 release and then denying any moral imperative to share the benefits you just grabbed with the people who are suffering because of that CO2 release.
CO2 causes people to suffer, so the solution is allow the people who are suffering emit all the CO2 they can?

[tyr_13]

Look around you. Are you living in a straw hut in Africa? Or are you benefiting personally from the development of the First World civilizations that involved the use of all that CO2 in the atmosphere that was once fossil fuel?

If you in no way benefited from that CO2 then you'd have a case. As it is, you're trying to pretend you're taking the moral high ground by cheerfully grabbing all the benefits of that CO2 release and then denying any moral imperative to share the benefits you just grabbed with the people who are suffering because of that CO2 release.

Ah, see, you really don't care about the problems of CO2, you care about benefits and moral imperatives. It's fine to have agendas and moral philosophies, it isn't fine to pretend they have something to do with solving global warming.

[A.A. Alfie]

Depends whichs ones. However the US is a mayfly compared to china and even england has only been reasonably stable since 1485.

In the last 150 years or so? That was your timeframe.

Ah, see, you really don't care about the problems of CO2, you care about benefits and moral imperatives. It's fine to have agendas and moral philosophies, it isn't fine to pretend they have something to do with solving global warming.

Quite.

[Captain.Sassy]

Too much, IMHO, is being made of percentages, and per-capita carbon emissions, when all that really matters is the total numbers

The total numbers come from the per capita numbers.

The fact that the problem is disproportionately caused by developed countries, esp. the US, means that you can make a strong case that it is just that the costs should fall disproportionately on them. It is harder to make the case that having the cost fall disproportionately on the third world is just.

Having a just framework is important, because you want countries to agree and to abide by the agreement.

Since having a just framework is important, instead of asking why the developing nations should get a 'pass' to increase their very modest per capita CO2 emissions, I would ask you to explain why developed countries should get a 'pass' to continue emitting in some cases exponentially more per capita.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5425649#post5425649)
If you in no way benefited from that CO2 then you'd have a case. As it is, you're trying to pretend you're taking the moral high ground by cheerfully grabbing all the benefits of that CO2 release and then denying any moral imperative to share the benefits you just grabbed with the people who are suffering because of that CO2 release.

CO2 causes people to suffer, so the solution is allow the people who are suffering emit all the CO2 they can?

I agree, WildCat.

Something the "social justice" folks don't seem to understand is that any technological and scientific solution will wind up being paid for largely by "developed" countries anyhow. This part of the world possesses the investment capital, the technical expertise, and the corporate models required to effect the transition from CO2-emitting fuels to rational alternatives. Any attempt to divert these intellectual and financial resources to "developing" countries is simply a lose-lose proposition.

My proposal is to allow "developing" countries to postpone the implementation of emission standards only by promising to introduce the liberal corporate and political institutions capable of accommodating the transition already underway in the "developed" world.

The proposals I've seen so far seem to virtually guarantee an increase in GHG emissions.

On a parallel note, I wonder why the AGW lobby hasn't grabbed the same marketing teams employed by the anti-smoking lobby. It took the latter less than two decades to practically eliminate smoking in public.

[A.A. Alfie]

On a parallel note, I wonder why the AGW lobby hasn't grabbed the same marketing teams employed by the anti-smoking lobby. It took the latter less than two decades to practically eliminate smoking in public.

They have far more subtle ways of educating the masses....

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx#ixzz0aApCEqRz

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions… In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ah, see, you really don't care about the problems of CO2, you care about benefits and moral imperatives. It's fine to have agendas and moral philosophies, it isn't fine to pretend they have something to do with solving global warming.

I asked you if it's impossible to do both at once, and you haven't answered that question.

[stilicho]

I asked you if it's impossible to do both at once, and you haven't answered that question.

It's not impossible but your proposals are sadly lacking in clarity. WildCat and others have explained why Copenhagen-style deals won't work. Why don't you produce an alternative that will? You have to include WC's observation that there is a limit in both time and CO2 concentration. This will help you focus on your proposal and limit your hand-waving and grandstanding.

[tyr_13]

I asked you if it's impossible to do both at once, and you haven't answered that question.

No, both are not possible at once because to try both at once is to invite massive opposition. One theoretically could do both at once, if you ignore the small fact that a huge segment would be against doing one at all, let alone at the same time as addressing AGW.

Other than that, what stilicho said is very reasonable.

Why do you feel it's ok to greenwash socialism?

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, both are not possible at once because to try both at once is to invite massive opposition.

Lots of people in the First World do not want to do what is moral. It does not follow from this that those people will get their way.


Why do you feel it's ok to greenwash socialism?

Have you stopped using fallacious arguments to avoid engaging with the moral point yet?

[stilicho]

They have far more subtle ways of educating the masses....

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx#ixzz0aApCEqRz

No, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about deploying the same marketing pressure as other successful programmes have.

Here's how it works.

You roll out a multi-phase campaign including advertising, lobbying, and promoting alternatives. As an example, one wing of the campaign could target public parking. Instead of the unworkable "green" campaigns to eliminate traffic, you start with pilot projects to have whole streets converted to high-mileage cars, identifiable either by size or handicapped parking-style tags. You widen the pilot projects until soon you'd only be able to park a "gas guzzler" on your own property. Mix in some positive-incentive projects, too.

This type of campaign may be applied even at the municipal level but rolled out across the country.

There's a lot of money to be made, too, since the American DHS spends billions every year on its national anti-terrorism advertising campaign and this is probably a similar business opportunity. Certainly if there are any fresh young marketing execs out there, this would be the time to put the buzz in senior management's ear and write yourself a plump bonus cheque for the new year.

[stilicho]

Lots of people in the First World do not want to do what is moral.

Hey Kevin_Lowe: The nineteenth century just phoned and wanted its Thomas Carlyle back.

[tyr_13]

Lots of people in the First World do not want to do what is moral. It does not follow from this that those people will get their way.

Your assertion that what you propose is useful or 'moral' is where you fail. Such subjective morals and ideologies have no place in addressing AGW. I'm sure there are libertarians who believe that their 'moral' solution is the one that should be advanced along with AGW solutions. There are doubtless Capitalists, and Hindus, and Buddhists who believe the same thing.

And yes, something as objectionable as what you suggests would incite many people to get in the way.



Have you stopped using fallacious arguments to avoid engaging with the moral point yet?

The Copenhagen Climate Conference is not about morals. It is about global warming. The greenwashing is objectionable to me. I object when GE does it, and I object when socialists do it.

[Captain.Sassy]

Your assertion that what you propose is useful or 'moral' is where you fail. Such subjective morals and ideologies have no place in addressing AGW.

Nonsense. A just solution is always preferable to an unjust solution.

Divorcing abatement targets from any consideration of current per-capita emissions arbitrarily implies that some people have an inherent right to pollute more than others. This is un-just. Therefore, per-capita emissions should be the basis for establishing targets for CO2 reductions.

There are of course other factors to consider when establishing the targets for abatement, and capping CO2 emissions at a uniform per-capita level would likely be neither just nor practical.

But per-capita emissions are the necessary starting point if you want to avoid an arbitrary and un-just solution to the problem.

[AvalonXQ]

Nonsense. A just solution is always preferable to an unjust solution.

I think the argument is that a "just solution" that cannot be implemented is actually not a solution at all. And a solution, whether just or unjust, is better than a non-solution.

[Captain.Sassy]

humans, according to this month's National Geographic, are pumping 9.1 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, while the earth can only absorb 5 billion metric tons per year.


Those numbers seem quite different from the ones published by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html

[Captain.Sassy]

I think the argument is that a "just solution" that cannot be implemented is actually not a solution at all. And a solution, whether just or unjust, is better than a non-solution.

Yes, but nobody reasonably expects a blatantly un-just solution to be accepted. So really, 'un-just solution' vs. 'just non-solution' is a false dichotomy. You can either hammer out a just and acceptable solution or you can cling to implied notions of an inherent right for some people to pollute more than others and forego any hope of solving the problem.

[Giz]

Depends whichs ones. However the US is a mayfly compared to china and even england has only been reasonably stable since 1485.

You mean that from the tradition of consistent governance in the USA is less impressive than China? The USA has had consistent representative democracy and a constitution since 1776 or so.

To recap, over roughly the same period, China had:

Manchu's /Qing dynasty (1644 - 1912)
(Note: I wouldn't regard this as a stable period, there were numerous large rebellions (Taiping, Punti-Hakka, Nien, Panthey, Miao, etc which each saw millions die), coup d'etats, endemic corruption…)
Republic of China (1912 - 1949)
Communist China (1949 - 2009)

The USA seems rather good really!

In fact, far from the USA being a "young" country, I would say that the USA is one of the oldest and most stable governments on the planet. Other, "older", countries could learn a lot from it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

The Copenhagen Climate Conference is not about morals.

This is your core claim, and you have simply pulled it out of your nether regions and presented it as the Word of God. It doesn't help your case that it's straightforwardly ludicrous: how can something which affects the welfare of billions of present and future people be declared a non-moral issue by a stroke of an internet poster's keyboard?

The elite of the First World are not going to be happy with any agreement that makes them take responsibility for the existing excess of CO2. The rest of the world will not be happy with any agreement that lets them skate on that responsibility. Some compromise will undoubtedly be reached.

[tyr_13]

This is your core claim, and you have simply pulled it out of your nether regions and presented it as the Word of God. It doesn't help your case that it's straightforwardly ludicrous: how can something which affects the welfare of billions of present and future people be declared a non-moral issue by a stroke of an internet poster's keyboard?

The elite of the First World are not going to be happy with any agreement that makes them take responsibility for the existing excess of CO2. The rest of the world will not be happy with any agreement that lets them skate on that responsibility. Some compromise will undoubtedly be reached.

It's funny how you will ignore the majority of points and focus on one, but no matter.

You frame the entire premise incorrectly. 'The elite' of the first world vs 'everyone else' is silly. Where are the Chinese and India on this? Are they the elite or everyone else?

How can I say that the Copenhagen Climate Conference is about climate change and not morals? Hmmmmmm...

[tyr_13]

But per-capita emissions are the necessary starting point if you want to avoid an arbitrary and un-just solution to the problem.

Which is what people seem to be calling unjust because it would also put limits on the developing world.

I'm for per-capita reductions.

[WildCat]

Those numbers seem quite different from the ones published by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html
Carbon ≠ CO2

eta: divide the mass of CO2 by 3.67 to get the mass of the carbon in it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's funny how you will ignore the majority of points and focus on one, but no matter.

Well, yes. I'm making one point. I'm not interested in pursuing the various other distractions that get thrown up to avoid that one point.


You frame the entire premise incorrectly. 'The elite' of the first world vs 'everyone else' is silly. Where are the Chinese and India on this? Are they the elite or everyone else?

They're not the elite currently benefiting most from the previous emissions, but they'd very much like to burn a lot of fossil fuels catching up to that elite. Of course if they did that everyone would be worse off, so in the interests of the global community we need to find a way for them to catch up to the First World without emitting so much CO2 that it does unacceptable damage to the planet.


How can I say that the Copenhagen Climate Conference is about climate change and not morals? Hmmmmmm...

This argument is so inane it rightfully deserves a place amongst the Stundies. "If it doesn't say moral on the label, then it follows that there is no moral component to it! Ta-dah!".

[OMGturt1es]

This talk fest will achieve absolutely zilch. When was the last time anything the United Nations was involved in was a success?
And why is it that despite some who claim the Earth is warming up the last decade has been the coolest for 90 years?
Is this climate change really due to mans activities or a natural event that occurs every couple of millenia? If it is human caused it is because of overpopulation methinks.
Then we have to follow China's lead and restrict couples to one or max. two children only not the dozens they now have in certain parts of the globe.

And your signature quotes Sagan. Jeez.

Debunking expert consensus isn't accomplished by asking general, obvious questions. I'd love to help you learn about the basics of AGW, but it's obvious you haven't even bothered to help yourself, so it would just be a waste of my time.

[amb]

And your signature quotes Sagan. Jeez.

Debunking expert consensus isn't accomplished by asking general, obvious questions. I'd love to help you learn about the basics of AGW, but it's obvious you haven't even bothered to help yourself, so it would just be a waste of my time.

As my signature states.............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

[tyr_13]

Well, yes. I'm making one point. I'm not interested in pursuing the various other distractions that get thrown up to avoid that one point.

Ah, so the fact that people might have other moral objections and ideologies that clash with your advocated one is a distraction? That's pretty epic handwaving.



They're not the elite currently benefiting most from the previous emissions, but they'd very much like to burn a lot of fossil fuels catching up to that elite. Of course if they did that everyone would be worse off, so in the interests of the global community we need to find a way for them to catch up to the First World without emitting so much CO2 that it does unacceptable damage to the planet.

And that has what to do with 'social justice' and socialist ideology? There are other ways to do that that do not rely on your advocated methodology. The inane thing here is that no one is saying that the first world doesn't have to help. Who the hell do you think is going to come up with the advanced farming techniques that save forests? Who is doing the energy research that reduces CO2 output?

'Catching up' to the first world is not the goal. Letting them feed their people and grow without producing more and more CO2 and pollutants are. The fact that the first world has more than the third isn't a problem unless your ideology says it is. The fact that the third world can't feed, cloth, and take care of their people is of course problematic. 'Evening' things out is not the only solution. In fact, it's a pretty piss poor solution.



This argument is so inane it rightfully deserves a place amongst the Stundies. "If it doesn't say moral on the label, then it follows that there is no moral component to it! Ta-dah!".

No, you want to insert your morals, and your ideology into it. That people might object to that is unsurprising. But go ahead and nominate it for a Stundie. It'll be funny.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ah, so the fact that people might have other moral objections and ideologies that clash with your advocated one is a distraction? That's pretty epic handwaving.

Sufficiently stupid arguments are legitimate candidates for handwaving.


And that has what to do with 'social justice' and socialist ideology?

You tell me, you're the one trying to slap those labels on things. I never claimed I was stating a definitive socialist ideology or whatever it is you are trying to pretend I am doing.


There are other ways to do that that do not rely on your advocated methodology. The inane thing here is that no one is saying that the first world doesn't have to help. Who the hell do you think is going to come up with the advanced farming techniques that save forests? Who is doing the energy research that reduces CO2 output?

I can't imagine anyone objecting to an arrangement where the First World pays a fair share of the costs of mitigating and preventing climate change, however we pay. The problem is that some First World leaders seem to want to weasel out of paying a fair share, and you seem to be parroting the talking points they are using to weasel with.


The fact that the first world has more than the third isn't a problem unless your ideology says it is.

You aren't one of those Ayn Rand people are you?


No, you want to insert your morals, and your ideology into it. That people might object to that is unsurprising.

That's the whole point of moral beliefs - to apply them to things. Unless you're some kind of moral relativist, "inserting" your morality into things is a necessary consequence having any moral beliefs in the first place.

I'm not surprised you object. I find your ideology and "morality" repugnant, and people with repugnant moral views usually get upset when their views are criticised.

[tyr_13]

Sufficiently stupid arguments are legitimate candidates for handwaving.

You've just called the morals of everyone who doesn't share your morals 'sufficiently stupid'. I'll go back to my examples about Libertarians, Buddhists, and Hindus.



You tell me, you're the one trying to slap those labels on things. I never claimed I was stating a definitive socialist ideology or whatever it is you are trying to pretend I am doing.

You assign blame to the first world, or first world 'elites' (whoever they are), and on that basis assume that they should pay for everything. You further 'suggest' (read: stated) that China and India deserve a pass on restriction or payment because the 'first world' advanced first. Perhaps my 'socialist' label is incorrect. Would 'anti-western' sound better? 'Pro-Asian'?


I can't imagine anyone objecting to an arrangement where the First World pays a fair share of the costs of mitigating and preventing climate change, however we pay. The problem is that some First World leaders seem to want to weasel out of paying a fair share, and you seem to be parroting the talking points they are using to weasel with.

'Paying a fair share' isn't what you advocated. When you let morals drive the argument, as opposed to practical and scientific concerns, you get caught in the trap of letting some people continue to destroy in order to punish the mistakes of the past. I haven't been listening to the arguments of the First World leaders, I've been reading yours.



You aren't one of those Ayn Rand people are you?

No, I'm not. I'm actually rather liberal.



That's the whole point of moral beliefs - to apply them to things. Unless you're some kind of moral relativist, "inserting" your morality into things is a necessary consequence having any moral beliefs in the first place.

Hi, welcome to a skeptic's forum. How is what you are saying any different than a Christian saying they have the moral justification to retake the Holy land from those dirty heathens?


I'm not surprised you object. I find your ideology and "morality" repugnant, and people with repugnant moral views usually get upset when their views are criticised.

I find letting 'moral' arguments destroy real useful reform addressing climate change dangerous. You want the 'first world' to pay, and you don't care what tool you use to do it. This is why you think China and India deserve a pass. They don't. It simply does not matter that, "the existing oversupply of CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't put there by them."

Be blinded by ideology all you'd like, but don't expect people to sit back and say, "Oh yes, it was wrong of the first world to put so much CO2 in the air. Let's let China and India do it now instead. It's only fair."

[Captain.Sassy]

'Catching up' to the first world is not the goal. Letting them feed their people and grow without producing more and more CO2 and pollutants are


It might not be the goal of the Copenhagen talks, but it is for sure the goal of many third world countries. Given that the West is disproportionately (i.e. per capita) the source of current CO2 emissions and will be for the foreseeable future, it would be hypocritical of the West to object to increases in CO2 required for economic development in the third world (assuming some basic level of CO2 emission is required for economic activity) without significantly curtailing its own emissions.

Yes, unchecked third world development following a fossil-fuel intensive course (i.e. the way the West developed) would be a disaster. But if the West refuses to significantly reduce its per-capita emissions (either directly or indirectly), which dwarf those of the average person in the third world, then why should the third world agree to hard caps on its own emissions?

Accepting that global warming is a global problem means accepting that responsibility for addressing it is proportional to the contribution to this problem. Hence, the inherent justice of per-capita emissions targets as a framework for GHG abatement, and the reason why agreements which implicitly acknowledge the per-capita framework are more likely to be perceived as just, and therefore more likely to be implemented.

[tyr_13]

It might not be the goal of the Copenhagen talks, but it is for sure the goal of many third world countries. Given that the West is disproportionately (i.e. per capita) the source of current CO2 emissions and will be for the foreseeable future, it would be hypocritical of the West to object to increases in CO2 required for economic development in the third world (assuming some basic level of CO2 emission is required for economic activity) without significantly curtailing its own emissions.

No one is suggesting that the first world (do you include China?) shouldn't cut it's CO2 emissions. I'm not even suggesting that the third world can't increase it's CO2 output. But giving them a 'pass' (especially China and India) is something I'm going to loudly object to, especially when it's based on some 'moral' justification.


Yes, unchecked third world development following a fossil-fuel intensive course (i.e. the way the West developed) would be a disaster.

Which is exactly what I'm arguing.



But if the West refuses to significantly reduce its per-capita emissions (either directly or indirectly), which dwarf those of the average person in the third world, then why should the third world agree to hard caps on its own emissions?

Which isn't what anyone is arguing that I can see. Also, the reverse is true. Why should the first world agree to massive reductions without any checks on the third world?


Accepting that global warming is a global problem means accepting that responsibility for addressing it is proportional to the contribution to this problem. Hence, the inherent justice of per-capita emissions targets as a framework for GHG abatement, and the reason why agreements which implicitly acknowledge the per-capita framework are more likely to be perceived as just, and therefore more likely to be implemented.

Yes, but that isn't what Kevin and myself have been arguing about. If you were just using my post as a jumping off point and not directly addressing it, I apologize.

[Captain.Sassy]

No one is suggesting that the first world (do you include China?) shouldn't cut it's CO2 emissions. I'm not even suggesting that the third world can't increase it's CO2 output. But giving them a 'pass' (especially China and India) is something I'm going to loudly object to, especially when it's based on some 'moral' justification.

No, I don't include China.

I'm not sure that Lowe thinks China should get a 'emit all you want pass' either.

However, China and India definitely should get a 'pass' to increase their current emissions by some amount. I guess what I'm arguing for is that you don't need to base this on the logic that the current CO2 concentration is mostly the fault of the West (it is). You can also look at the per-capita emissions as a way of evaluating who should cut and by how much.

WildCat brought up his opposition to using the per-capita framework in his original post questioning whether 'justice' should or should not be a goal of any Copenhagen agreement. I must have inferred that your references to 'justice' were similarly in reference to using per-capita emissions as the (either implicit or explicit) unit for deciding on abatement targets, because using per-capita emissions targets allows you to arrive at a just solution to the problem.

[AvalonXQ]

As a rather extreme right-wing libertarian type, a per-capita emissions agreement sounds good to me.

[lomiller]

However, China and India definitely should get a 'pass' to increase their current emissions by some amount. I guess what I'm arguing for is that you don't need to base this on the logic that the current CO2 concentration is mostly the fault of the West (it is). You can also look at the per-capita emissions as a way of evaluating who should cut and by how much.

If you are going to limit emissions, there needs to be some fair way to decide who gets to emit what. Per capita is the most obvious, but I would prefer something that also took population density into account.

In contrast there are others here who feel that it's their right to emit 4X as much CO2 as someone in China or 10X as much as someone India. They think that if they have to cut their CO2 emissions so should everyone else, even the people already emitting much less. Clearly the unfairness of such proposals make them completely untenable and most of the proponents try hard to avoid discussion over what they are really saying, but this is what they propose nonetheless.

[Captain.Sassy]

If you are going to limit emissions, there needs to be some fair way to decide who gets to emit what. Per capita is the most obvious, but I would prefer something that also took population density into account.

Could you clarify this? I would have thought that population density would have an effect on per-capita emissions. Urban density=less need for transportation and heating.

In contrast there are others here who feel that it's their right to emit 4X as much CO2 as someone in China or 10X as much as someone India. They think that if they have to cut their CO2 emissions so should everyone else, even the people already emitting much less. Clearly the unfairness of such proposals make them completely untenable and most of the proponents try hard to avoid discussion over what they are really saying, but this is what they propose nonetheless.

yup.

[lomiller]

Could you clarify this? I would have thought that population density would have an effect on per-capita emissions. Urban density=less need for transportation and heating.



Assuming a fixed target for emissions, per captia emissions must drop as global population increases. IMO it's unfair for countries with stable and/or lower populations to have to cut back because of population growth elsewhere.

None of the big CO2 emitters are likely to get on board with this because in general they are also the most heavily populated.

[Captain.Sassy]

Assuming a fixed target for emissions, per captia emissions must drop as global population increases. IMO it's unfair for countries with stable and/or lower populations to have to cut back because of population growth elsewhere.

That's a valid point. But I don't think we're really at that point, yet, i.e. the per-capita emissions of the developed countries (with stable or decreasing populations) are still so much higher than those of the developing countries that I would bet (though haven't done the arithmetic) that you could set a global limit on total annual CO2 emissions, derive a per-capita level from that (i.e. divide by 6 billion people), and still have population growth and per capita emissions growth throughout much of the developing world that would not push the world over that limit if the high per-capita emitters dropped to the initially established limit. Obviously, the more population grows the more I am unlikely to win my wager. Another reason why less population growth is good.

None of the big CO2 emitters are likely to get on board with this because in general they are also the most heavily populated.


Actually, I think at one point China was arguing along similar lines, i.e. its one child policy meant that it should be allowed higher per-capita emissions than otherwise.

[AvalonXQ]

That's a valid point. But I don't think we're really at that point, yet, i.e. the per-capita emissions of the developed countries (with stable or decreasing populations) are still so much higher than those of the developing countries that I would bet (though haven't done the arithmetic) that you could set a global limit on total annual CO2 emissions, derive a per-capita level from that (i.e. divide by 6 billion people), and still have population growth and per capita emissions growth throughout much of the developing world that would not push the world over that limit if the high per-capita emitters dropped to the initially established limit.

If that's the case, then developing countries should be fine with setting total emissions per country proportional to current population.
And certain really dirty factories may then move to third world countries that have emissions to spare.

[lomiller]

That's a valid point. But I don't think we're really at that point, yet, i.e. the per-capita emissions of the developed countries (with stable or decreasing populations) are still so much higher than those of the developing countries that I would bet (though haven't done the arithmetic) that you could set a global limit on total annual CO2 emissions, derive a per-capita level from that (i.e. divide by 6 billion people), and still have population growth and per capita emissions growth throughout much of the developing world that would not push the world over that limit if the high per-capita emitters dropped to the initially established limit. Obviously, the more population grows the more I am unlikely to win my wager. Another reason why less population growth is good.



If you do it that way western countries have truly daunting targets and even China would be looking at cuts. I don’t think you could cut a deal under those conditions. More realistic is to aim for per-capita targets in the 6-7 tonne range. This is roughly what France is at now, and most EU countries are within striking distance. It allows China a little room to grow (not much though) while still offering some possibility of global cuts from reductions in the really high per capita countries.

TBH though I don’t see it happening. I really think science is going to lose this one and our descendents will be paying the price for many generations. :(

[AvalonXQ]

If you do it that way western countries have truly daunting targets and even China would be looking at cuts. I don’t think you could cut a deal under those conditions. More realistic is to aim for per-capita targets in the 6-7 tonne range. This is roughly what France is at now, and most EU countries are within striking distance. It allows China a little room to grow (not much though) while still offering some possibility of global cuts from reductions in the really high per capita countries.

Why not go ahead and set the per-capita amounts where they need to be (say, 1 metric ton per person per year for each country based on their 2010 population), but allow for countries to trade emissions they're not using? This would give third world countries a monetary influx as first world countries buy up unused emissions and put less expensive methods in place to reduce their own emissions. This seems to work all the way around if we can get everyone to agree on it.

[Captain.Sassy]

Why not go ahead and set the per-capita amounts where they need to be (say, 1 metric ton per person per year for each country based on their 2010 population), but allow for countries to trade emissions they're not using? This would give third world countries a monetary influx as first world countries buy up unused emissions and put less expensive methods in place to reduce their own emissions. This seems to work all the way around if we can get everyone to agree on it.

Yeah I'm okay with a global carbon market. You'd need carbon tariffs for non-compliers and monitoring to make it work though.

[Captain.Sassy]

More realistic is to aim for per-capita targets in the 6-7 tonne range.

Still pretty steep cuts for many countries.

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah I'm okay with a global carbon market. You'd need carbon tariffs for non-compliers and monitoring to make it work though.

Right. The only way to create a viable carbon market is to make it more expensive to not comply than to buy carbon credits. But it seems like it would work the other way, too -- whatever the price of noncompliance, carbon credits should end up becoming cheaper than noncompliance.
So the key is really just to set noncompliance more expensive than implementing changes to pollute less.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You've just called the morals of everyone who doesn't share your morals 'sufficiently stupid'. I'll go back to my examples about Libertarians, Buddhists, and Hindus.

Libertarians I'm happy to call stupid, along with communists. Religious beliefs have no place at the table either. What else do you have?


You assign blame to the first world, or first world 'elites' (whoever they are), and on that basis assume that they should pay for everything. You further 'suggest' (read: stated) that China and India deserve a pass on restriction or payment because the 'first world' advanced first. Perhaps my 'socialist' label is incorrect. Would 'anti-western' sound better? 'Pro-Asian'?


Where did I say anyone deserved a pass on restriction? You don't get to argue with a straw man. Engage with my actual position or shut up.


'Paying a fair share' isn't what you advocated. When you let morals drive the argument, as opposed to practical and scientific concerns, you get caught in the trap of letting some people continue to destroy in order to punish the mistakes of the past. I haven't been listening to the arguments of the First World leaders, I've been reading yours.

Obviously not.


Hi, welcome to a skeptic's forum. How is what you are saying any different than a Christian saying they have the moral justification to retake the Holy land from those dirty heathens?

I think I see now. You're one of those people who believes that there is no objective morality. Go read one of the frequent threads about how atheists can be moral, and in the mean time stay out of threads that relate to moral issues because they will just confuse you.


I find letting 'moral' arguments destroy real useful reform addressing climate change dangerous.

Once again this is a false dichotomy you found in your nether regions. Kindly put it back there. Any real, useful reform will be based on morality or else the bulk of the world will not accept it.


You want the 'first world' to pay, and you don't care what tool you use to do it. This is why you think China and India deserve a pass. They don't. It simply does not matter that, "the existing oversupply of CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't put there by them."

Be blinded by ideology all you'd like, but don't expect people to sit back and say, "Oh yes, it was wrong of the first world to put so much CO2 in the air. Let's let China and India do it now instead. It's only fair."

If we could find a way of sequestering the carbon in your straw men I think that would help the CO2 problem significantly.

[lomiller]

Still pretty steep cuts for many countries.
It's higher then the current global per capita and most of Europe is alkready close so it's an achievable goal for a first world countries.

[tyr_13]

Libertarians I'm happy to call stupid, along with communists. Religious beliefs have no place at the table either. What else do you have?


Do you really want me to list all other moral systems besides your own?


Where did I say anyone deserved a pass on restriction? You don't get to argue with a straw man. Engage with my actual position or shut up.


Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
So why should countries like China and India and other developing nations get a pass?
Because the existing oversupply of CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't put there by them, it was put there by the nations who industrialised first and who are currently sitting pretty on the economic and military advantages that gave them.

Clarify your position if what you've said isn't it. There is you justifying giving China and India a pass. Obviously it isn't a strawman to address what you've actually said.


Obviously not.

Why do you have to make your position so hard to pin down in every discussion?



I think I see now. You're one of those people who believes that there is no objective morality. Go read one of the frequent threads about how atheists can be moral, and in the mean time stay out of threads that relate to moral issues because they will just confuse you.

No, I'm not. Wait, you've mistaken me, do I get to call what you're saying a strawman now? I don't think 'morals' are a good ground to make climate decisions on. You've said that past emissions are the west's fault, and therefore, they should clean it up.


Once again this is a false dichotomy you found in your nether regions. Kindly put it back there. Any real, useful reform will be based on morality or else the bulk of the world will not accept it.


No, any real useful reform will be based on science and be compatible with morality. Your 'blame the west' first attitude will only alienate the first world and give bad polluters in the third world more ammo to not reform.


If we could find a way of sequestering the carbon in your straw men I think that would help the CO2 problem significantly.

If it weren't for your obfuscation, you might seem more reasonable. 'Straw this', and 'straw that', gets old real fast. Keep doing it, and no one is going to believe you when there really is a straw man of your argument brought up.

[tyr_13]

Still pretty steep cuts for many countries.

It is fairly steep, but I believe it is doable depending on the time frame. Sadly, I seriously doubt that we will be able to mitigate the actual warming enough and will have to also adapt to an elevated climate.

Also, there are other solutions besides focusing strictly on emissions. Replanting of forests and other carbon trapping resources is important and not just for global warming. More advanced power and transportation infrastructures also have benefits apart from CO2 output reduction.

[Captain.Sassy]

Also, there are other solutions besides focusing strictly on emissions. Replanting of forests and other carbon trapping resources is important and not just for global warming. More advanced power and transportation infrastructures also have benefits apart from CO2 output reduction.

True enough. I'd personally like to see more forests and nuclear powered high-speed mag-lev monorails.

I thought I heard/read/might have made up at one point that forest sequestration was limited in its effectiveness because CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't perfectly mixed or something, and so sequestration through tree growth didn't remove carbon from the middle and upper atmosphere?

[tyr_13]

True enough. I'd personally like to see more forests and nuclear powered high-speed mag-lev monorails.

I thought I heard/read/might have made up at one point that forest sequestration was limited in its effectiveness because CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't perfectly mixed or something, and so sequestration through tree growth didn't remove carbon from the middle and upper atmosphere?

Yeah, there was something about that. Also, there was something about how older growth forests actually release enough methane for them to produce a net increase or some such thing. I'm sure with more research it could be managed though.

I was thinking about this today and I think another good suggestion would be agreements on how logging works internationally. These would be things like replanting requirements, and restrictions on clear cutting. There are already a lot of laws like this in the US, although some could use some clarification and enforcement, to the point were the US imports lumber despite having huge forest reserves.

But if the energy infrastructure is improved enough, hydrogen and battery technology becomes more viable, even for things like harvesters. Rail is not only fantastic for freight, but it very good for people as well. There is the problem in making it viable in areas of low population density like the US though.

Yet another consideration on climate emission requirements is, well, the climate. Colder areas simply must have home heating, and electric heating is just not practical right now throughout much of the US and Canada. I'd image this is true in Russia and Mongolia as well.

[amb]

The thing that's causing all the problems and no one seems to want to fix is starring us right in the face..................over population. Fix that and all the other problems will fade away. The Earth cannot sustain a population of 6.5 billion people. We either fix this problem or the Earth itself will fix it soon enough.

[Captain.Sassy]

Rail is not only fantastic for freight, but it very good for people as well. There is the problem in making it viable in areas of low population density like the US though.

See, I'm not convinced on the population density argument necessarily. I think a lot of the low population density in the US that matters is suburban sprawl (again read/heard/might have made up but seems plausible). If this is the density that is contributing to increased emissions because of, for example, commuting in to work in the morning, then it for sure can be addressed by light rail commuter transport. I'm not sure how much of the transportation share of US emissions is produced by commuting and driving around within cities, and how much is produced by driving between cities, but low density is only really an obstacle to using rail transport to reduce emissions for those emissions that are caused by transport to and from low density areas like small towns and farms.


Yet another consideration on climate emission requirements is, well, the climate. Colder areas simply must have home heating, and electric heating is just not practical right now throughout much of the US and Canada. I'd image this is true in Russia and Mongolia as well.

True to an extent, but more could definitely be done in this regard. In any case, I think that per-capita emissions caps should be adjusted to reflect temperature for sure.

[lomiller]

Agreed it doesn’t really matter if you have 50 miles between cities or 500, what matters is how close you live to the city you work/shop in. Another problem especially in parts of the US is that many cites are built as “freeway only” there is no practical way to live in them without a car traveling considerable difference on a freeway to do even simple tasks. Transportation between cities can elevate CO2 slightly but that pales in comparison.

Another bad argument is “but it’s colder here”. AC is as much a problem as heat. Besides, ground source heat pumps are very efficient for both heating and cooling and there really are not that many places where they can’t be used.

[tyr_13]

Agreed it doesn’t really matter if you have 50 miles between cities or 500, what matters is how close you live to the city you work/shop in. Another problem especially in parts of the US is that many cites are built as “freeway only” there is no practical way to live in them without a car traveling considerable difference on a freeway to do even simple tasks. Transportation between cities can elevate CO2 slightly but that pales in comparison.

Yes, the design of many urban centers and sub-urban housing, especially in the US, sucks. Buffalo New York is a perfect example of this. At one time it was a water and rail center. Then it switched to a very poorly thought out road system. Sure it has a passenger rail way. However, that rail shuts down main street and only has one line between downtown and one college campus. If I remember it is three stops.

They only place I could walk to work around here would be a farm.


Another bad argument is “but it’s colder here”. AC is as much a problem as heat. Besides, ground source heat pumps are very efficient for both heating and cooling and there really are not that many places where they can’t be used.


How is that a bad argument? AC is a problem, but one that has many solutions. You don't freeze to death if you turn down the AC. Japan has actually been fighting this problem on both fronts. During the winter, some snow is shoveled into attics and store house for use during the summer, off setting AC. Also, there have been mandatory 'casual dress' days to prevent heavy AC.

Yes, ground pumps are good and all, but are expensive to retrofit onto older construction. Again, this all depends on timescale. Short term it will be more difficult for colder regions to bring down carbon emissions. Long term, it isn't as much an issue.