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.
ohioholic (00:08:31) :
If the Feds are so concerned with the disastrous effects (hurricanes and sea level come to mind) associated with global warming, why are they rebuilding New Orleans?
Because they don’t believe a word of the story they are using to gouge us. They are rebuilding New Orleans for the same reason they are deepening the Suez and Panama Canals: they are expecting sea levels to drop.
If everyday people can see through the shoddy excuses for this agenda, so can the politicians. They aren’t stupid. Those who politically support this, however, are naive to the nth degree over the reckless abandon and destructive path on which it places nations.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I want the US to remain independent of any sort of world government. If I had my way, we’d withdraw money from then UN but continue to go to meetings just to see what the rest of them are saying.
What they don’t want you to know — So I assume wood fires for cooking and wood fires for heating are out?
Have you ever looked at the number of agricultural and land clearing fires that are burning on a daily basis in the third world? While not specifically targeting that aspect, the FIRMS ‘Fire Mapper” has a neat graphic to view that.
View it here — http://firefly.geog.umd.edu/firemap/
It would seem to me the poor third world countries need some modern coal fired power plants and some modern fossil fuel burning farm implements.
“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”
My prediction is that by 2012, any mention of Climate in any context will become a political liability. As the above quote reminds us, unemployment is approaching a critical stage -both politically and economically. Politicians have generally skirted around the issue. Most of the happy talk since Jan 2009 has been about government spending or expanded government control of the private sector. Employment has only been discussed as an after thought to these activities. The President and his party believed that enough short term spending would slow job loss. Obviously they estimated incorrectly. The time is approaching quickly where unemployment will become THE ISSUE.
Anyone with half a brain realizes that the Waxman-Markey Bill is a job killer. There are some (not many) who believe that what Smoot-Hawley was to Hoover and the GOP, Waxman-Markey will be to Obama and the Dems. What could have been a short but sharp recession has the potential to expand to a deep (very deep) and prolonged Depression.
Climate and AGW has always been an upper middle class/wealthy issue. It is pure fantasy. But like most causes, it has taken on a life of its own. Future Historians will wonder about the political insanity that consumed so many people of this generation.
Only the consumer of the product (or service) should be tagged with the CO2 label. I’m sure the controllers wouldn’t want to practice double counting.
Following this position, I would imagine that a rich person like Sheryl Crow would have a lawyer to argue that most of her high lifestyle carbon footprint was to support the singing service/products she provides. Even to the extent that she has to buy the big house because the consumer expects it. She would say she really wants to live in the stone cave but the consumers don’t want her to. She might even be able to cite an example where she bought a smaller house and noticed the correlation with her sales going down. The consumers were telling her the image of a poor singing star was unacceptable, so they forced her to move up.
The rich? In the U.S. you might think of the East Coast power elite or the West Coast celebrities. For the rest of the world, Americans are the rich. And how would this all play out?
It was said that Ayn Rand made stuff like this up. This is Directive 10-289 (from Atlas Shrugged) for the planet, except only one single part of the planet is the target. Just look at how it’s laid out:
“no one person’s emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year.”
and
“the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.”
From this it sounds like the rest of the world is in fine shape, it’s just us ‘rich’ Americans who need to cut our production of carbon in half. What about the rich in the rest of the world? They’ll doubtless be in good shape as their own country’s average will keep their penalty low and they’ll be able to plant a few trees to get off. As for Americans, I wonder who’ll pay? A Congress critter on a fact-finding junket to the Islas Galápagos? Silly me – that’s public necessity. Hollywood or its celebrities? How could I be so foolish – that’s also public necessity – morale building for the masses.
So what happens when Obama gives everything away in Copenhagen? As bad as it is, does anyone really think that, with a new election in 2010 staring them in the face, the Senate will ever ratify any such treaty next year? The political scene in the U.S. over the next year or so could become quite interesting.
AGW is a social movement that used climate science to achieve its policy goals. Its policy goals, as every policy goal instituted on AGW demands shows. do nothing for the climate. AGW is about acquiring and exercising political and economic power.
Here is another example of what to expect more of as AGW gains power in the public square:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/public_sector/article6639289.ece
As CO2 has no proven effect on climate we should stop any publication that “keeps the hoax alive”.
The fact that “Hollywood” is sharing the “AGW/Climate Change bed” with Washington,
combining the biggest carbon footprints with the ultimate green hogwash about our climate, tells us we are dealing with the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever seen in the history of the USA.
I think this is the core message of this article.
If the climate treaty makes it through the Senate, which I doubt, nothing will change for those who have the big bucks.
They can afford it.
It’s Middle Class America and the poorest of the poor who will pay the price.
Some call it “socialism”, or “spreading the wealth”, I call it the biggest robbery in history.
I have one question: is the current administration trying to screw up the economy or is it just plain incompetence? “The economy is bad”, they say, “We need another stimulus.” Uh-huh. Who is going to pay for it? “The rich.” Uh-huh. Explain to me again how taking more money away from people who spend a lot of money to begin with is GOOD for a capitalist economy?
The only to fix the recession is to have people spend more money. If you keep taxing those who are likely to spend more money, they won’t have less money to spend and the problem becomes worse. Anybody with half a brain should see this! And what is worse, they are using something that anybody with an a quarter of a brain knows is false as an excuse!
Guess who likely will be exempt from this rich tax? The enlightened members of Congress and their buddies. Instead of having a climate Czar, we are going to have a real Czar. The royals will be back. The media is not this administration propaganda machine like in North Korea and Iran. They worship the President, literally.
This ain’t over. Even if they do not succeed with climate change, they will try again with something else. People will more likely fall for the big lie than the small one. I didn’t say that, Adolph Hitler did. And he was right. Just look at the country we live in.
One billion rich people in the world?
Does the U.S. population constitute one third of that number by some chance? Despite saying the target should be rich individuals the article also notes:
I suspect the threshold for “rich” is low.
Doesn’t everyone love that Robin Hood character?
Bah.Humbug to the mean old sheriff.
Takes from the rich and gives to the poor!
The old socialist creed: You are rich, I am poor. That means you should be poor also and I should tell you what to do.
Don’t you love those celebrities.
How they must be squealing with delight now that they don’t have to be seen driving a daggy Prius. M.B. has come to the rescue with a “green” SUV.
(Daggy. Australian slang word. means: that which comes out of a sheeps bottom and gets caught up in it’s tail)
Curiousgeorge (04:12:08) :
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.
You’ve obviously never read either of them, but don’t let that stand in the way of having an opinion.
“Capitalism can buy it’s way out of any crisis, providing the worker is willing to pay.”
Lets help push it further to the ridiculous. To be honest, I feel that with what I’ve learnt I could be come a very extreme environmentalist! Woof, woof, rrrrr.
Would that include Prince Charles?
Without any comments:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/07/enviro-wacko-catch-of-day.html
It’s a sad day in science when the National Academy of Sciences believes that CO2 is dangerous greenhouse gas. It’s a pitiful exhibition of ignorance from what was once a prestigious organization.
Without any comment:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/07/06/06greenwire-a-busy-week-ahead-as-senate-starts-work-on-cli-16348.html
The Bluetec converts emissions into harmless nitrogen and water. Wait a minute: isn’t the largest greenhouse gas water? 98% Hypocrites.
Who says history never repeats? Here we have the teachings of Rousseau(James Hansen) his disciple Robespierre (Al Gore). Using the National Convention(National Academy of Sciences) to bring on the Reign of Terror, let the tumbrils roll!
The photo reminded me … nearly 20 years ago, a rootless school music teacher from Missouri arrived in LA. She did odd jobs and flailed and failed in one attempt after another, to “break into the scene.”
By dumb luck, via a friend of a friend, she essentially stumbled upon an eclectic group of musicians, who would jam at least once a week in a cramped, decrepit rehearsal space in a back alley of Burbank. This motley group referred to themselves as “The Tuesday Night Music Club.”
Neither a formal band nor a completely ad hoc group of session musicians and club moonlighters, nonetheless, they had a body of work they had developed. Key contributors were a guitarist / bassist / keyboardist, a singer / keyboardist / song writer and a drummer, who all knew each other from their earlier years, playing in various groups 350 miles to the north, in the southeastern suburbs of San Francisco.
Having an additional “voice” would allow the existing singer to focus more on keyboards on certain songs and do deeper development of the songs. A demo tape was cut. It got airplay on KROQ and other “alternative” stations, as well as, significantly, hearings in various recording companies. A proper recording and release would be funded. Now who are these folks? Strangely, and, in keeping with the dog eat dog nature of this at times sordid business, only the new Missourian signer would sign, along with a completely different band than the one who cut the demo. C-ya later, suckers!
This story is 100% true. I shall reveal nothing more.
If the rich liberals were”punished” for carbon emissions, I wonder if they would begin realizing and expounding the fact that global warming does not exist. Imagine Leonardo di Caprio saying, “Ah, Mr. Gore. I didn’t realize this was going to hurt me financially. Is it okay to begin speaking the truth now?”
On the verge Waxman-Markey and amidst a financial crisis in the States and the supposed climate crisis in the world due to excess CO2 emissions, Ms. Obama took her two kids, a 757, and all the support vehicles and personnel on a shopping trip to Paris. Did I miss something?
Could a “Carbon Police State” be in our immediate future?
Goodbye EPA…Hello Enviro-Gestapo!
In the meantime…The Earth continues to be no warmer now than it was 30 years ago…UAH Lower Trop
And quite possibly, no more than 0.2C warmer now than it was in 1850…
HadCRUT3 Low Frequency Trend
You guys have the science backwards.
Repeat with me: CO2 is plant’s food.
The bigger your carbon footprint, the more you are contributing to feed starving pants.
Thanks Sheryl Crow for feeding our crops.
Ops. sorry, I meant ‘plants’, not ‘pants’