|
|
|
| |
A Carbon Protection Racket
July 27, 2009, Christian Science Monitor . India has offered to cap its greenhouse-gas emissions – but only at an industrialized a level ten times higher than its own emission rate. China will not accept a cap at all, and at the Major Economies Forum on July 9, China and India even blocked setting a target for world emissions in 2050. This trend confirms that other developing countries will also stick with their anti-cap positions, leaving half the world’s emissions unchecked and growing far faster than emissions from the industrialized nations.
The Waxman-Markey bill was supposed to remedy this problem by providing US leadership, which poor nations would follow by accepting caps. But this hope ignored the inequities of caps and ignored the bill’s offer of an estimated $13 billion a year – growing to $83 billion annually in 2050 – to buy “international offset credits” from developing countries. ... Due to a copyright agreement, I can't run the whole op-ed for 90 days. I'll provide the link when it appears on line on Monday.
|
|
| |
Fact: India has offered to cap its greenhouse-gas emissions – but only at an industrialized level ten times higher than its own emission rate.
Check: In this official press release, Ramesh, the Indian Minister of State for Environment, says that “India will not allow its per capita GHG emission to exceed the average per capita emissions of the developed countries. The Minister explained, this effectively puts a cap on our emission, … Making this more clear the Minister said … India’s per capital CO2 emission are currently only 1.1 tonnes, when compared to over 20 tonnes for the US and in excess of 10 tonnes for most OECD countries.”
So India is saying it will effectively put a cap on its emissions at the level of developed countries, which range from over 10 to about 20 Mt/person/year while its emissions are 1.1. So it is offering a cap at 10 times its present level of emissions.
|
|
| |
Fact: But this hope ignored the inequities of caps and ignored the bill’s offer of an estimated $13 billion a year—growing to $83 billion annually in 2050.
Check: Find the EPA document here. Click on the first document under June 2009, “EPA Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”. Then go to the “Total Abatement Cost” page #14. Look at the two rows under “International Offset Payments (Billion 2005 Dollars)” The two rows are the same results from their 2 models. In 2015 the payments are now $13 billion, and in 2050 either $80 or $86 billion, or $83 billion averaged.
|
|
| |
Fact: Stanford researchers Michael W. Wara and David G. Victor found over a year ago, Europe’s offset purchases have not drawn developing countries into “substantial limits on emissions,” but have, “by contrast, rewarded them for avoiding exactly those commitments.”
Check: Their paper is available here.
|
|
| |
Fact: As a result of this perverse incentive, Europe’s cap-and-trade market is considering rules to ban the purchase of UN offset credits from major developing countries.
Check: NY Times, March 20, 2009, "Is the Clean Development Mechanism slumping toward extinction? By NATHANIAL GRONEWOLD, ClimateWire.
"In a bid to pressure major polluters from the developing world to adopt binding emission reductions, E.U. regulators are threatening to ban the import of CERs from all but the poorest nations and small island states in future rules proposed for the European Union's own Emission Trading Scheme, by far the world's largest cap-and-trade program and the main market for CDM credits."
|
|
| |
N. Gregory Mankiw, NY Times, September 16, 2007,
"One Answer to Global Warming: A New Tax."
“Using a historical baseline to allocate allowances, as is often proposed, would reward the United States for having been a leading cause of the problem.” He concluded “China is unlikely to be persuaded to accept fewer carbon allowances per person than the United States.”
Joseph Stiglitz, September 16, 2007,
Making Globalization Work, Chapter 7.
“By what right are the developed countries entitled to pollute more than we are, simply because they polluted more in the past?" And he concludes, “no one has really provided a reasoned defense of the premise underlying Kyoto.”
|
|
http://stoft.com/p/133.html | 03/12/10 01:23 GMT
Modified: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:31:32 GMT
|
|
| |
Amazon
China and India have nixed caps. Without these caps, Kyoto fails. What can be done?
Carbonomics explains "wrecking" the economy, "peak oil," caps, carbon taxes, and Kyoto.
About Carbonomics.
Get discount.
|
|
|
