What can we expect from the United Nations Climate Change Conference, to be held in Bali, from 3 to 14 December 2007?
One outcome could be an international cap and trade system, allowing nations that wanted more than their caps to buy credits from nations with low emissions. This would enable a nation like the US to buy credits from African nations, from India, Bangladesh, etc.
The problem with this is that, unless caps were set extremely low (which is unlikely), it would not result in emission cuts in the US, while the money in the receiving nations will be spent on more cars, coal-fired power plants, etc (i.e. more emissions). Furthermore, the Bush administration seems to plan to pay for credits with nuclear power plants, which would make developing nations dependent on technology support and on assistance with safety and security aspects.
In other words, such an emissions trading scheme would be largely ineffective in reducing emissions and would come with unacceptable risks of nuclear accidents and proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Instead, we should work towards a global commitment to tax emissions and use the proceeds to subsidize local supply of clean and safe alternatives. Each nation could determine how high these taxes should be, conditional to increases if emissions fail to reach agreed targets.
How would this work out in more detail? Earlier articles discussed a number of policies. To reduce carbon dioxide, we should tax fossil fuel and spend the proceeds to subsidize local supply of renewable energy. To reduce methane, we should tax meat and use the proceeds to subsidize things such as vegan-organic restaurants in communities without roads. To reduce nitrous oxide, we should tax fertilizers, using the proceeds to subsidize agrichar. Similarly, a shift could be achieved from the conventional way of making concrete to better alternatives. Nations should keep each other informed about progress and review policies on an annual basis.
References:
United Nations Climate Change Conference - Bali, 3 - 14 December 2007
http://unfccc.int/
The Nuclear Delusion
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977131568
Global Warming - cap and trade or tax?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976951347
Tax the sale of meat!
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977123673
Small houses - perfect for communities without roads
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977175654
Agrichar
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977155102
Alternative manufacturing process of concrete: Tec Eco
http://www.tececo.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
The only real solution is to change the nature of our money. If producing greenhouse gasses and other polution reduced or eliminated the income of everyone involved in that production such production would be quickly reduced. This is not possible with our present form of money. It is possible with another form as described in my novel "Invisible Hand" all of which I have published here on Gather, all 43 chapters.
It is also available without the Gather ads at:
http://www.unc.edu/~mason/hand.html
and, of course, you can leave comments and have me respond. :-)
This is a serious solution for a host of other problems as well. For example:
poverty, unemployment, inflation, organized crime, government regulation/oppression,
and taxes (there would be no taxes at all). It sounds impossible, I know. And it is impossible with any previously existing form of money. If you don't investigate you will never know what you might have had.
China will be happy in this failure- they have no desire for the spotlight to be turned on them, they would much rather have the USA blamed for a failure to achieve internation agreement to reduce CO2 emissions.
Money is a small part of the puzzle, but read my article Ditch the Dollar!
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977191965
To combat global warming, government should first of all stop supporting polluters and instead tax emissions, while using the proceeds to subsidize local supply of clean and safe alternatives and while letting market mechanisms sort out what works best where.
Washington and Brussels jointly proposed that all 151 members of the WTO cut tariffs on at least 43 types of environmentally-friendly goods and services in order to boost their use worldwide. The proposal would affect exports ranging from solar panels to engineering work that improves energy efficiency. "Other products with a clear environmental benefit, for example goods related to waste water management and potable water treatment, waste management, and air pollution control could be added to this list," the EU said.
The two trading powers also proposed a new WTO agreement to further open trade in green goods and services, on the basis of a complete list of environmental goods submitted by the EU and other WTO members earlier in the year.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hp1WJuBzFzSrygrIEh8Nl2qewkaA
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/30/business/EU-FIN-ECO-WTO-Green-Trade.php
Ten unsolicited points from the world's worst connection. Merry whatever you celebrate!