1. Developed, i.e., wealthy, mostly "Western" nations (including Australia) don't want to agree to any binding emissions restrictions. They want everyone to play nice, set their own restriction goals and time-tables, and then live up to them.
Comment: HAH. Like that's gonna happen.
2. Developing large nations don't want any restrictions on economic growth forced on them. They point out, with some justification, that the wealthy nations built their economies on cheap energy and unrestricted emissions. So why should they have to hold back the raging forces of economic growth because of their impacts on climate change, when the wealthy nations didn't have to? Rather, they're willing to be part of emissions restrictions (to an extent) if the wealthy nations pay their fair share for what they've done in the past.
Comment: I can see where they're coming from.
3. The bit players, the poorest countries who may get hit the hardest by climate change effects: sea level rise, increased or decreased rainfall, increasing extreme events, degradation of terrestrial and marine ecosystems (affecting food resources and production), increasing populations that want some degree of better lifestyles -- are appealing to the developed and developing nations to do something.
Comment: Life isn't fair, but it should be fairer.
4. The group that has the most at stake -- the youth of the world, and future generations -- has no advocacy representation. It is them who the negotiators and leaders should be thinking of the most; but foisting problems onto future generations to take care of in favor of maintaining status quo commerce and strong economic growth -- which is predicated on increasing populations, and I think we're starting to see some problems with that -- is politically and governmentally expedient.
Comment: EVERYONE says they worry about the children, except they don't really worry about what's going to happen to them when they GROW UP.
Do I have a solution? Are you kidding? Coming up with a treaty "formula" would require nations and their populations to do something that is anathema -- actually agree to actions that don't always serve their self-interest first. There should be (as if) a commitment to the fact that we all live on the same planet, and we're screwing the hell out of it.
What I would do if I was in charge (and the EU, remember, has actually floated a proposal like this, see the link) ------ is put a carbon tax on everybody keyed to national production and consumption. See, if you're producing and consuming, then you're using energy and releasing carbon. Less carbon emissions = less tax. That's an incentive to ramp up alternatives, but it will take time. The tax revenues would be given partly to developing nations (who would also be paying the tax at a lower rate) for compensation as they implement their own methods of reducing emissions. The other part of the tax would be paid to the nations that have the least wherewithal to deal with it and the lowest economic output.
Sounds simple, doesn't it? The number one lesson here is that there is no national altruism; abandoning your own people (or being seen to have done so) is never seen as politically wise. What needs to be done is to change perceptions -- current policies are abandoning the youth and still-unborn future generations to a highly uncertain and perilous future. To actually do something substantive would be to accept our current responsibility to them. What needs to be done to make world leaders serve constituents that don't exist yet?
I don't know.
Articles:
What's to become of the Kyoto Protocol?
UN climate chief hails Bangkok talks
China: Climate talks sabotaged
"As time winds down before the Copenhagen meetings, poor countries are complaining that rich nations seem to be on a path to carve out a new agreement that forces them to cut their emissions, while rich nations will get away with minimal cuts.
The United States, Japan and Australia have offered a number of proposals in Bangkok, moving away from internationally binding emissions cuts. Instead, individual countries would pledge their own cuts without binding timetables and targets."
India wants less 'evangelical' climate talks
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is not going to be easy. Renewables aren't all they're cracked up to be in arid regions:
"German developer Solar Millennium announced plans to build two large solar farms in the state's arid Amargosa Valley. Hard-hit from the recession, the hundreds of jobs the project would create was welcome news to the Nevada community. But now the people are divided ever since the company disclosed that the project would require 1.3 billion gallons of water a year -- about 20 percent of the valley's available water. While some are worried about the impact of the solar farms on the environment, others are hoping to earn money selling their water rights.
That quote is from this:
Water an issue for some renewable energies
No comments:
Post a Comment