Jonathan
What is your course?
Clare
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Ward
Sent: 17 March 2008 09:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Critique of contraction and convergence?
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
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
|