this is something i have brought up in debates on my course, that thereneeds
to be a better understanding of the ownership of CO2 emissions. as Chris
says, if China is epxeriencing high emissions growth due to export, then we
share responsibility in our purchases. I tried arguing ot the swedish
government representative that is easy for countries like sweden to reduce
their CO2 footprint when it is considered the sum of their internally
sourced consumption. It is tied a little to kuznets and urban environmental
transition theory, that you displace the burden of your environmental
problems with increasing wealth. so you remove all you heavy industries and
turn to services...your economy becomes low carbon...but of course sweden
like all western countries still consumes an unsustainable amount, and that
should show in the CO2 budgets. somehow the emissions of production should
be shared or included in the purchase of goods and services., likewise, oil
countries with take the burden for everyone else.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Chris Keene" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 1:07 AM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Critique of contraction and convergence?
> I've been reading about Kyoto2 recently, and I'm not sure C&C is the way
> forward - it doesn't account for embedded energy - all those Chinese
> beavering away to make consumer junk for the West have the emissions
> involved counted towards *their* budget, which is obviously unfair.
> I wonder if a scheme involving auctioning of emission rights to energy
> corporations, with the proceeds going to an international body like the
> UN, would be better. They could then use the revenue to help the majority
> world develop along a zero carbon pathway, putting money into R&D,
> renewables etc. And we could do away with all those loopholes in Kyoto,
> like the CDM, which are supposed to finance this development of renewables
> there, but have hardly made any difference and which are effectively
> preventing the setting of a real cap, the most important think we need
> now.
>
> I know that C&C is supposed to finance this, but the trouble is, payment
> for emission rights goes to governments, and I think the UN would be
> better, since so many governments are corrupt, and even if they aren't,
> they are under so much pressure to cut taxes there will be a great
> temptation for them to use payments they get for emission rights to fund
> general government expenditure, rather than low carbon, or zero carbon,
> development.
>
> But I might be wrong. What are people's views on this?
>
> Chris
>
|