The only thing the Bali Communique said was that the industrialized nations should take the lead. Do you seriously think a status quo where Americans and Canadians emit 10x the per capita GHGs of the Chinese is fair? I mean we can have cars, and dishwashers and air conditioners—but they can’t? Of course they must participate, but it makes sense for us to take the lead.
Are you more concerned with “fairness” or with results?
If China, India, and others are exempted — will any actual reduction of “greenhouse” gases result? (Greenhouse is in quotes, because an atmosphere is only very roughly analogous with a glass-covered building.)
What about the problem of aerosols generated by Chinese coal plants? The west drastically reduced aerosol emissions over 20 years ago, at great cost. Dirty brown smoke from China continues to circulate the globe. This is the stuff we used to call “air pollution” — does it make it easier to breath because it comes from China. Does it’s origin somehow make it “fair”?
If massive amounts of money are diverted from productive nations to third-world basket cases, will the world be a better place? Or is it more likely that the money will disappear into a morass of corruption and incompetence?
If the objective is to help less developed countries, is the Bali solution the best available?
“Do you seriously think a status quo where Americans and Canadians emit 10x the per capita GHGs of the Chinese is fair? I mean we can have cars, and dishwashers and air conditioners—but they can’t?”
1) Since when is science supposed to be about “fairness”?
Natural Selection isn’t exactly very fair either... does that mean we get to ignore it?
Its simple, either a solution will achieve the desired results or it won’t. Regulating industrialized nations while ignoring developing ones won’t do anything to reduce the over-all level of GHG’s produced... it’ll just simply shift where they get produced (from regulated to unregulated environments).... because it will be FAR CHEAPER for the producers to shift where they produce the GHG (or better yet, simply buy “Carbon Credits” from undeveloped nations) then to actualy reduce thier production of GHG..... the diplomats at the UN know this... which is the REAL political impetus for GW policies at the UN... not any legitimate concern about climate change. Under-developed nations see this as an opportunity for major increase in income (particulary for the diplomatic/governing class of those nations) with little need for real political reforms or investments in infrastructure that would spur genuine economic growth in those countries.
While we are on the subject of fairness. What is fair about this scenerio.... 5 people on one side of a river have 5 acres of land to farm, it support them suffeciently.... they pass on that land to thier 5 children who it also sustains..... 5 people on the other side of the river have 5 acres of land to farm which supports them sufficiently.... they pass that land along to the 50 children they have... who turn around and complain that the land along the river is not “fairly” distributed.
Surely you are NOT positing that poorer nations, those who have NOT been subject to wild, asinine, baseless, random, politcially expedient enviromental regulations of the last 40 years are actually producing LESS GHG per capita than the US and Canada are you?
I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on that, friend. Citations, please, from sources NOT reliant upon grants.
Also see: My tag line.
But the Chinese will (next year) EXCEED the US in emitting CO2. WITH NO RESTRICTIONS NOR TAXES. NO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS AT ALL!
And you think THEY emit 1/10 of today’s emissions? ???? (Must be listening to the MSM.)
India is close to catching up with us.
Now, you “claim” that “we” (the US) should not have appliances, cars, heat, power, light, and fertilizers if the rest of the world cannot get them, but you “want” the Kyoto and Bali Accords to be enforced.... thus guaranteeing that the rest of the world CANNOT achieve energy and economic freedom? After all, if a “rich” European nation “buys” carbon credits from a poor third world country, that (starving, energy-poor) third world nation CANNOT use carbon (the ONLY available, affordable fuel) to feed and transport its own citizen.
Can we pretend that “planting trees” will increase a country’s economic life, its fertilizer and electricity industries when its women are burning sticks for firewood?
Just where do you think the trillions sent to the third world dictatorships goes? Palaces? Or roads, water pipes, and pumps (when there is no electricity to run the pumps and the sewage treatment plant - after all, you "sold" their carbon rights to fund Al Gore's house!)