
New climate strategy: track the world’s wealthiest
Source: Reuters
* World’s richest emit about half of Earth’s carbon
* Tracking the wealthy could break climate impasse
* New method would follow individual greenhouse emissions
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) – To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.
Since about half the planet’s climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries — including fast-growing economies China and India — are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.
Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up.
The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.
For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person’s emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion “high emitters” in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.
EACH PERSON’S EMISSIONS
By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.
With international climate talks set to start this week in Italy among the countries that pollute the most, the authors hope policymakers will look at the strong link between how rich people are and how much carbon dioxide they emit.
“You’re distributing the task of doing something about emissions reduction based on the proportion of the population in the country that’s actually doing the most damage,” said Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute, one of the study’s authors.
Rich people’s lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.
By focusing on rich people everywhere, rather than rich countries and poor ones, the system of setting carbon-cutting targets based on the number of wealthy individuals in various countries would ease developing countries into any new climate change framework, Chakravarty said by telephone.
“As countries develop — India, China, Brazil and others — over time, they’ll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they’ll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future,” he said.
These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.
Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, Chakravarty said, but he did not rule it out: “We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it’s great.”
This week’s climate talks in Italy are a prelude to an international forum in December in Copenhagen aimed at crafting an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. At the same time, the U.S. Congress is working on legislation to curb U.S. carbon emissions. (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
(h/t to Curious George)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, the global warming alarmists’ real communist agenda is becoming apparent. But natural justice demands that rich people who have fallen for AGW and who moralize to the rest of us – while being able to afford brand new Mercedes diesels and offset their carbon on the way to the Caribbean – should be stripped of all their worldy chattels and sent to live in a labour camp in Siberia.
This article was posted on Tips & Notes to WUWT earlier by Curious George.
Curiousgeorge (16:43:35) :
Here’s a really stupid idea : http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06427635.htm .
My response then was:
I’ve finally figured out what causes “global warming”.
It’s the moon.
It’s got to be involved when they come up with lunacy like the article CuriousGeorge posted.
It would be interesting to do a survey amongst the great and the good who will be discussing this proposal-politicians-as to:
a) What % of the atmosphere they believe to be comprised of co2
b) What % is emitted by humans
c) What % ALL co2 represents of ALL Greenhouse gases.
d) What they believe will be the replacement energy source that will cut co2 by the levels planned.
e) How many of them believe that temperatures are unprecedented and ice levels are at their lowest level ever.
f) How many tens of billions of dollars will need to be spent to theoretically reduce temperatures by each tenth of a degree.
Tonyb
This is an Interesting link that sets the perspective of this cap and trade within the economy. I quoted from it extensively in the Spencer thread.
http://sites.google.com/site/disclosuredelta/
The rich people are already paying more because they are using more gas and buy more stuf wich already has a tax on it. Our goverment(Netherlands) has a tax on each Liter(0.28 gallon) of 0,70 euro. That is the highest in Europe and probaly the Highest in the whole world. They is no need to punish us more on driving a car than they are already doing.
So how will this work?
All the electricity I use is wholly hydro – carbon free. I don’t travel overseas much any more and my favourite vehicle (BMW Z3 2.8), even with six cylinders, is as economical and pollution free as the old bangers that some of the genuinely poor people down the bay are forced to use.
I’m progressively growing my own vegetables and buy almost everything from the local farmers’ market. I burn manuka – a native NZ hardwood with a 20 year cropping cycle that, effectively, is carbon neutral. I don’t buy Chinese plastic novelties or unnecessary appliances. I do this because I want to, not because of some ideological ‘carbon footprint’. Apparently, I am deemed to be ‘rich’; not that I noticed.
I can think of people who are the antithesis of this.
In terms of income many people of very different backgrounds, even in our small country (NZ), or even my local region, appear the same but live lives that are vastly different in their ‘carbon’ consumption and emission.
So, there are two alternatives. Tax me because I am ‘rich’ and therefore a ‘polluter’ or tax those who ‘pollute’ the most. The former is just envy, the latter would require a policing system that is orders of magnitude beyond the various income tax systems around the world.
Envy or control – maybe both could be accommodated.
As it happens, I don’t believe a word of the AGW scam (thanks, especially, to this site) but isn’t it a wonderful excuse for shifting wealth around as the mythical ideologies dictate.
Purakanui:
Didn’t you know that hydro contributes to global warming more than fossil fuel plants?
When you punish the rich they pass the costs on to you plus a little bit more profit on the top that they weren’t making before. Hence much of the global warming alarmism comes from the elites themselves. The interest they earn on their money is plenty to cushion any climate costs against them, but the costs they pass on to working class people is punishment. That’s how they maintain the status quo.
“Rich people’s lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.”
Hmm, I suspect the article focused on fossil fuels and ignored or minimized wood- and dung fuels, commonly used for heating and cooking in the tropics.
Say, if it turns out, ten years down the road, that there’s no catastrophic warming going on, and that on the contrary CO2 is raising agricultural yields while protecting the planet against a worrisome cooling trend, maybe the rich can be given a bonus for their contribution.
Al Gore in his eco-office
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6229/fatboyq.jpg
Can I sign up to stalk I mean monitor Cheryl..
Well, I’m all for issuing a 10 Ton Carbon Card and when you reach your limit you are done for the year…
Cap and Tirade would be repealed in about 2 months when the congress critters could no longer fly anywhere…
The Sheryl Crow / celebrity report about Mercedes doesn’t appear to mention anything about the fuel mileage of the Blutec’s powerful V6 engine.
Sure it probably consumes less than the average SUV, but it is still profligate.
I’m sure these stars also live in Blutec mansions with energy saving bulbs, fly in Greentec Gulfstreams, eat organic food and gobble only green power when having concerts.
How much of a sucker does one have to be to fall for this?
My friend the communist
Holds meetings in his RV
I can’t afford his gas
So I’m stuck here watching tv
I don’t have digital
I don’t have diddly squat
It’s not having what you want
It’s wanting what you’ve got
— Sheryl Crow – Soak up the Sun —
Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz?
— Janis Joplin – Mercedes Benz —
Woollyhead starlets driving round the car lots
In their new Mercedes Benz.
Looking for a dunny down which to flush their money
Just to impress their new friends.
— tallbloke 2009 —
Purakanui (02:17:37) :
my favourite vehicle (BMW Z3 2.8), even with six cylinders, is as economical and pollution free as the old bangers that some of the genuinely poor people down the bay are forced to use.
Genuinely poor people don’t have cars. Some of them carry the water they need several miles daily from a hole they share with the animals.
“To fairly divide…”
Ouch, that split infinitive!
*Ducks*…(incoming…)
Unfortunately, this is what is to be expected from the Obama Administration; they were, are, and always will be about income redistribution. They have never been about preventing (almost non-existent) man-made global warming. The only way this over-arching scheme could be implemented is by an additional tax on “the wealthy” based on assumptions of consumption that cannot be proven to be accurate (kind of like long-term climate models). It saddens me to see the path this country has started to follow under the pseudo-socialist leadership of the Obama Adminstration.
He’ll be selling the fraudulent credits and offsets. I’m thinking of getting into the business myself. The money you’ll have to pay for producing CO2 must go somewhere. That’s what climate change legislation is all about. Taking money from you and giving it to someone who’s not you.
“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can count on a lot of support from Paul.”
– George Bernard Shaw
Someone up thread questioned the definition of “rich” in this brave new world being proposed. I believe that was defined for us a few months ago by none other than Pres. Obama. $250,000 annual taxable income for U.S. citizens is apparently the cutoff, although that seems to be falling ever lower lately.
gianmarco (01:10:57) : the not so hidden agenda of the greenies is to exterminate half of the world population and make the rest live in the middle ages.
Whilst that can sound outlandish, there are many groups in the world who simply detest modern life and modernity in general. We can recall that Enlightenment dictum to “think for yourselves” was an advance, it was something quite new for us. Hundreds of years earlier, the Moslem world had its Golden Age of scientific and philosophical advancement. But then other forces put a stop to that, and they never recovered, and are still struggling to drag themselves into the modern world (equal rights for women, democracy, freedom from dogma, etc.) to this day.
The planet is full of groups who’d prefer the “comforts” of pre-modern life, where people were not self-serving individuals, but rather were God-fearing, community participating members of a greater order of things, where we were all part of one organic mass of humanity. People still romanticize that age as one where we were more “connected” to fellow men and to Nature and to God. Some groups are even willing to blow things up to achieve that.
These people fail to realize that there is a terrifying difference between a post-industrial world and a pre-industrial world.
Jeez,
That’s good news; now we can use our many hundreds of years’ worth of coal with a clear conscience. We have something like a millennium’s worth of thermal power and motor fuel just under the surface. To date we have declined to burn it (of course, we did export it to clean-burning, guilt free China, but that’s different). There might be an awful lot of oil offshore here as well.
Would we get credits for declining to dam more rivers and even more for giving them back to fishing, rafting and kayaking?
A further thought or 2. The idea does have considerable appeal to those who would control the proletariat: From each, to each , etc. Mssr’s Marx and Engels would love this. Personally, I’m wondering if my septic tank is large enough to accommodate this load.
The point is that an absurd concept “carbon credits” and an absurd faith position “carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant” leads inexorably to an absurd solution, and all in the name of “fairness” and “global equity”.
The posters who point out that this is very close to communism are correct. Once we assume that Western modern society is the sickness that is killing the planet then the logical conclusion is global mandatory poverty and a massive bureaucracy to keep us that way.
We’re near the end of the road for the climate change scare, which means that its going to get very much worse before people stop talking about climate change. Unemployment in the US is 10% and still rising, and people will not stand for any more “sacrifice” to save the planet when they’re about to lose everything.
BTW, with the highest standard of living in the world, the first 200-250M of that 1B are living in this country. I think we have more to worry about than energy taxation. It seems to me the extreme faction of this zealotry seeks to lead the malleable into a worldwide eco-religio dark age, complete with carbon emitter witch hunts, and burnings at the stake. Avid Warmers are the new Moonies, each with a bota bag of koolaid ready to serve.
….and I forgot to add, they’re now running the world’s most powerful government.
And now finally we see what this is ALL about …… the real truth .. the real chip on the shoulers of those who would wish to control. Eco-mentalism … the perfect (but equally flawed) replacement for socialism and its nasty cousin communism. I won’t spell it out here … but for anyone who is any doubt … PLEASE read Vaclav Claus’s book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles”. And for anyone who says this man is not qualified .. this is a man (who until the 30th of June) was the President of the Euoperan Union, is the democratically elected President of the Czech Republlic and who has spent most of his life under the yoke of a flawed political system .. whose EXACT aim was to do what is being described above.
Please get the book !