The draft texts being debated hinge on four key issues:
Emissions cuts: Industrialized nations are being pressured to cut back on emissions, while major developing nations like China and India are being asked to curb emission growth.
Financing: Richer nations are being asked to finance initiatives to help fight climate change in developing nations, but there is disagreement over how much climate aid should be given, and how it should be distributed.
Monitoring: The U.S. and developed nations are pushing for international verification of emissions actions by developing nations, but China, India and others are resisting any verification program.
Legal Form: Some nations want to extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, while others — including the U.S. — would like a separate agreement that includes major developing nations.
Here is what I think about each one. The first concern is a given. We need to cut back as industrialized nations. Whereas developing nations should only curb because they have lower emissions per capita and have emitted far less over the last 200 years than the developed world.
As for the financing, I wouldn't know. It's too technical.
However, with the monitoring issue, it's clear to me what should happen. Of course there should be verification of emissions actions by developing nations. If this does not occur, these nations can claim actions while not doing anything, so that on paper it looks like emissions are cut, but in actual fact they are not. Furthermore, this allows emitters from developed countries where emissions are being cut to avoid restrictive policies and continue emitting in the developing world. This and further economic concerns would result from unverified emissions reductions actions.
As for the legal issue, it should be a new treaty that encompasses all the nations. It's simpler to do so than adding nations to the kyoto protocol. This would mean unnecessary complications with the structures of kyoto. Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere
Copenhagen has not surprisingly, turned into a farce.
ReplyDeleteHugo Chavez received a rousing applause for his disgusting rant against capitalism. He accused the west of creating AIDS ,poverty and war. He accused Obama of being a warmonger.
You cannot have an intelligent debate about anything with these idiots at the podium. It is foolish to pretend otherwise.
This is an interesting way to decide how each country should pay. If the following is used, even though the science is not settled on Climate Change and is falling apart, then it is fair. It is bad enough that your tax dollars go to dictators, it should be used wisely.
ReplyDelete=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
PS Do not go to site because they are like me and do not agree on global warming and believe that it is nothing but a wealth transfer.
Gabby in QC says: 1. December 17, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I know some who visit here will probably not like what I’m about to suggest, but IF there is an agreement in Copenhagen to set up some kind of a fund to help developing countries cope with their hagens … I mean with the effects of climate change … then each country’s contribution should be commensurate with the total GHGs they emit:
• China would have to contribute $21.5 Billion for producing 21.5% of total GHG emissions (2006 data)
• US $20.2 Billion for its 20.2% of GHG emissions
• EU $13.8 Billion, but I would increase it to $15 Billion or more as a penalty for the overwrought rhetoric of two European leaders, Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown, whose speeches – even though I heard only snippets – were waaay over the top. Emitting that much hot air has to have some kind of consequence.
• Russia $5.5 Billion
• India $5.3 Billion
• Japan $4.6 Billion
• Canada? Well, we emit only 1.9% of GHGs (2006 data) so we’ll have to contribute $1.9 Billion.
Since that money will have to come from somewhere, I propose that all government employees, including MPs and the judiciary, take a pay cut of 1.9%.
In addition, each province that receives equalization payments and transfers will also be cut by 1.9%. Actually, as some westerners have already suggested, maybe equalization payments should be stopped altogether to those provinces which find the oilsands a blight on Canada’s reputation.
I’m sure there are plenty of other programs where a 1.9% cut could easily take place.
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2009/12/17/will-you-continue-to-be-a-global-warming-patsy/#comments
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What do you think?
Clown Party
PS I am makoing a copy of this so if it does not get on you site I can repost it.