China Sunk the Copenhagen Deal

[myata]

So what would you sacrifice in order for action? Note that I said sacrifice which means you have to come up with something that matters to you. The typical "make the big bad polluter over there pay" excuse is not enough.

I already said it, in case you haven't noticed. If the real objective is actual, measurable and significant reduction, there has to be a stimulus for the consumer to use less carbon-emitting products, as for the producer to use more efficient technologies.

You can't argue fairness because you have already said you think it fair to make poor people in Canada suffer in order to line the pockets of the wealth in countries like China.

Just as said, you folks have no notion that anything could happen outside of "zero sum" pattern, i.e. unless we're kicked in the butt, or somebody pays us in return. If that becomes the dominant pattern of thinking (and acting) here, I'd feel really sad for the future of this beautiful country. It'll be left to the others to do things because they are challenged, and interested to overcome it, and because it's the right thing to do, regardless of where the cham next door is going, or what India is doing.

[Michael Hardner]

So you do believe it is unfair for wealthy people to have better cars, bigger houses, more food, more clothes or any other luxery? If you have no problem with wealthier people having more things then you should accept that wealthier people will pollute more. In fact, it is mathematically impossible to buy more things without polluting more.

Shouldn't they have to pay for any damage that their activity causes, whether or not they're rich ? We're not talking about penalizing people here, but making sure they pay the actual costs for their purchases.

[GostHacked]

Shouldn't they have to pay for any damage that their activity causes, whether or not they're rich ? We're not talking about penalizing people here, but making sure they pay the actual costs for their purchases.

This won't solve the problem. No matter how much you pay for the item, the pollution to the environment will be the same. If I pay 10 dollars or 100 dollars for said item, it still does not address the problem. It's a money grab/transfer.

Thought must come first in terms of packaging/production/shipping to make that more efficient and less harmful to the environment. What you propose is the customer/consume pay for the companies bad environmental policies. I won't be buying into that scheme.

[Riverwind]

Shouldn't they have to pay for any damage that their activity causes, whether or not they're rich ? We're not talking about penalizing people here, but making sure they pay the actual costs for their purchases.

It is not possible to quantify the 'actual cost of purchases'. The only thing we can do is employ technology to reduce the amount of emissions used in the manufacture of the goods. If someone buys more of the same good their emissions will be larger and no amount of social engineering will change that. What this means is calling for rich people to have the same per capita emissions is the same as saying 'rich people should be taxed so they cannot buy any more than poor people'.

Now you might be able to play games and say rich people should spend more when they directly consume energy because they can afford it but direct consumption is only a fraction of the emissions produced by a single person. This means the goal of equal per capita emissions is unachievable without also equalizing per capita income.

[Riverwind]

I already said it, in case you haven't noticed. If the real objective is actual, measurable and significant reduction, there has to be a stimulus for the consumer to use less carbon-emitting products, as for the producer to use more efficient technologies.

You may say it but that cannot possibily be your goal if you support international treaties like Kyoto because such treaties are designed to do nothing but move emission producing industries to developing countries. If that is you goal then you should be supporting policies that have a chance of achieving the stated goal.

Just as said, you folks have no notion that anything could happen outside of "zero sum" pattern

All I care about are policies that can actually achieve their stated goal. If there is not a single global price for emissions that every pays no matter what their wealth then there will be no reduction in emissions. The only thing that will happen is the sources of emission will move to the lowest cost locale.

[myata]

You may say it but that cannot possibily be your goal if you support international treaties like Kyoto because such treaties are designed to do nothing but move emission producing industries to developing countries. If there is not a single global price for emissions ...

I already said, there's no need to invest time and mental energy in designing shaky and implausible to varying degrees justifications for inaction - just say it plainly, you aren't interested in any act for any reason other than 1) dire necessity; or 2) direct and immediate gain.

It's lot easier and gives all explanations and justifications you'd ever need.

[Michael Hardner]

This won't solve the problem. No matter how much you pay for the item, the pollution to the environment will be the same. If I pay 10 dollars or 100 dollars for said item, it still does not address the problem. It's a money grab/transfer.

Thought must come first in terms of packaging/production/shipping to make that more efficient and less harmful to the environment. What you propose is the customer/consume pay for the companies bad environmental policies. I won't be buying into that scheme.

That action would create incentives for better environmental practices, though.

[Michael Hardner]

It is not possible to quantify the 'actual cost of purchases'. The only thing we can do is employ technology to reduce the amount of emissions used in the manufacture of the goods. If someone buys more of the same good their emissions will be larger and no amount of social engineering will change that. What this means is calling for rich people to have the same per capita emissions is the same as saying 'rich people should be taxed so they cannot buy any more than poor people'.

Now you might be able to play games and say rich people should spend more when they directly consume energy because they can afford it but direct consumption is only a fraction of the emissions produced by a single person. This means the goal of equal per capita emissions is unachievable without also equalizing per capita income.

Firstly, let's be clear that we're not talking about a suggestion of mine, or anyone else that this is the way to tackle the problem. We're talking about the general question you asked about the rich. It has nothing to do with whether they *directly* consume energy or not. If there are environmental costs with producing goods, then those would be paid for at source and then passed on.

There's nothing in that idea about social engineering or punishing the rich, it's about putting costs where they should be.

The question about quantifying the costs involved is about implementation, and since we're only talking about philosophy here implementation isn't relevant.

[Riverwind]

The question about quantifying the costs involved is about implementation, and since we're only talking about philosophy here implementation isn't relevant.

You responded to my response to a 'per capita emissions should be equal argument'. I am saying that argument is nonsense for the reasons I stated. The 'paying the true cost of pollution' argument does not use ability to pay a justification to allow some people to evade paying the costs.

[Michael Hardner]

You responded to my response to a 'per capita emissions should be equal argument'. I am saying that argument is nonsense for the reasons I stated. The 'paying the true cost of pollution' argument does not use ability to pay a justification to allow some people to evade paying the costs.

Ok.

[maple_leafs182]

The two track approach is total nonsense and would only lead to a wealth transfer from poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries without any significant reduction in global emissions. The reason is simple: when relocation is possible it will always be cheaper to relocate production to countries with no emission limits than to actually reduce emissions.

Bottom line: If the problem is not serious enough to require that developing countries accept limits then it is not serious enough to require that developed countries limit their emissions.

agreed

But China was never going to allow its sovereignty to be compromised -- which is how the US Senate feels, as well.

What major power is going to allow itself to be 'regulated' and 'be responsible to' a rabble of 190-whatever countries, most of them tin-pot dictators or out-and-out tyrants?

This has always been the problem with Kyoto -- the loss of national sovereignties. For many of these countries, the boss never has enough German cars ... and that's all it is. Policy can be bought, like sausages.

The US government is already full of tyrants.

All this treaty was about was implementing a world government.

It has nothing to do with pollution and global warming.

This would of created a trillion dollar industry

It's all about money, power and control.

People have to realize the men at the top really don't care about us.