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?
Good post. I am interested in achieving results—but am prepared to be fair in doing so. The developing nations problem is thorny to say the least. They must be part of the solution or there will be no solution. My point was that (if you believe there is a potential problem) the Bali reference to the industrialized nations “making the greatest effort” does not seem so out of line. I mean, if my neighbor diverts 10,0000 gallons from the river and I divert 1000 gallons, and the river was running dry, I would expect him to make a “greater effort.” Similiar problems exist with us needing Idonesia and Brazil to preserve the rainforests as carbon sinks. Aerosols are a different issue. I would agree that China’s pollution and Asian dust are very serious concerns. As long as we don’t emit more than them on a per capita basis, I do not feel hypocritical demanding that they do something about it.