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.
I think the SPAM filter blocked my last post because of a WFT link and a WUWT link.
How mad green policies could turn against water front property owners has become evident in Australia.
I wonder if Al Gore’s waterfront property will be demolished as well?
From http://dailybayonet.com/?p=1777
Aussies Surrender to Hoax:
A moonbat council in Byron Bay in New South Wales has decided that not only is global warming real, but that it cannot be beaten.
MILLIONS of dollars worth of luxury waterfront homes at Byron Bay will be demolished in the name of climate change following a council decision to enshrine “planned retreat” in law. The radical step to block homeowners protecting their property from rising sea levels was contained in a coastal planning policy released by the Greens-run Byron Bay Council yesterday.
It would be the first time in NSW that the idea of planned retreat – where nature is allowed to take its course – will be imposed on existing dwellings under state law.
Dutch people should be grateful that the Greens aren’t running their country, or the dikes that protect the lowlands would not exist.
The Washington Ad Campaign from heartland.org:
http://www.heartland.org/suites/environment/LetUsDebate.html
Download these great ads and spread them around.
IMHO, it is about waste and not wealth. Wastefulness is the problem. How big a house does one need? How many Maine Lobster can be flown in “live” for dinner? Do you need to eat tenderloin every time you eat beef for dinner? How many cars does one person need? Further to that, how many products do you buy that are built for the bottom line and not to last. Products that last and work do not help the bottom line. Why not build products to last? Planned obsolescence: these 2 words should never have been combined.
“The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions;”
Ironically, the penultimate Communist’s wet dream – or do their dreams of control even have any bounds whatsoever, save regression unto death? ‘Would that these Obsessive Compulsive Controllists had stuck to merely washing their own hands over and over like the many respectable obsessive-compulsives do, but no, they need to “save the World” in order to achieve “meaning in life”, at our expense of course.
Well, from me to all you self-annointed “elite”, thanks a pantload [= a diaper load]! Hey, that would only be “fair”, since that’s apparently all we’re getting from your “peer review” process.
Why do you think they were very disappointed when their satellite failed to launch? Because it was precisely what they wish to do, tracking each household CO2 emissions and tax. Oh no, it was for science… yeah right…
I’m all for it as long as it is ruthlessly enforced on potentates and peons, billionaires and bimbos, congress and cretins (but I repeat myself), yes everyone must be in the queue. While we’re at it let’s pass universal, single payer, everything included health care . . . same provision as above. Mr. President get in line with the winos. I suspect the prospect would cause a lot of people to discover how wonderful the old system was.
So, how will this ‘solve’ global warming again?
Offsets? So, I give someone a bucket load of cash for ‘offsets’? What are there ‘offsets’? I give this cash to a company, who gives it to the government, who gives it to a company who then, theoretically, gives it to another company that plants trees?
I’ve tried tracking down where these offsets go (specifically, Al Gore states he buys said offsets) but it dead ends with various companies whose statements are ‘invest in green technology’ without seeming to actual make or doing anything.
Meanwhile, China and India can continue to run their factories without any regulation – or emissions controls – pumping pollutants into the air? All because they are ‘poor’? Seems like China and India have a vested interest in keeping poor people poor…didn’t someone mention the ‘poor commodity’?
Why not go after people who live in colder climates — they use far more energy to heat their homes.
Here in San Francisco, where it is temprate, I never use air conditioner nor do I use the heater more than 2-3 times a year.
Tax the crap out of people in the northern and southwestern states — nail the Swedes too!
I’m currently reading “The Bruntland report – aka “Our Common Future” and so far it looks like a blueprint for global socialism. Interestingly, the communist Russian government hosted some of the meetings on this in the mid-’80’s which to me is a big “red” flag.
In just about every environmental article I have read so far (from left wing policy centers, various UN sites and various academia sites) that are about reducing global warming, there is a common theme of developed nations paying for past damages (eco-reparations) to the “commons” (i.e. the atmosphere) as well as paying for the constructing of infrastructure so that developing countries can enter the modern world.
One of the recent phrases I came across is “contraction and convergence” where the contraction is developed nations using less energy and the convergence is the converging of everybody having an equal per-capita CO2 footprint. I’ve also come across this phrase in regards to convergence of both national per-capita GDPs and incomes both among nations and within nations.
Next on my reading list is the UN’s “agenda 21.”
I might come out pretty good under these new “peer reviewed” “study” recommendations attaching penalty to personal wealth, except that I’ve got some real estate I wouldn’t sell for any price even though I could, so I must therefore be infinitely wealthy! And by now I guess we can all figure out what that would mean. Either I’d be revered by the “elite”, or I’d be killed by them, depending upon how much I screamed about “saving the World”, praised other “elites”, and blamed other people for the sad mental state the elites find themselves in – you know, from having been born and having to live in an “unfair” World which by definition has foisted this very sad thing we know as existence upon them.
Millionaires feed the planet. For the many pigs out there who indulge in jets and wastefull travel, there are thousands of farmers that have a million or more in assets. 1 large tractor, quarter of a million. One large combine, also a quarter million. 2 large trucks, 1/4 of a million. One large air seeder, 120,000 dollars. Several circles, that is a million. (circle is 160 acres of land with a sprinkler system) This mid sized enterprize uses irrigation pumps and has fuel delivered by thousands of gallons per delivery. There is a very high correlation between fuel consumption and tons of yield. We have to raise millions of bushels to keep the non working classes obese. As long as america is the bread basket to the world, we will be required to consume a lot of energy including hundreds of trainloads of grain. Yes and a lot of farmers have a plane and fly to buy parts when equipment breaks down because time is money. A harvest crew on my fathers farm runs with 5 combines 30′ wide, 20,000 dollars an hour. People like algore live in their ideologies. Yes we can ride bicycles. Yes we can drive small dangerous cars. No we are unable to use tiny tractors and small combines and reduce costs of fuel consumption per ton of grain. 3 small cattle trucks use more fuel than 1 large truck.
Here’s a simple question: If Cap N’ Trade and carbon taxes are such wise, egalitarian proposals – why do they require a deceitful foundation? Why must the warmist agenda rest on the lie that CO2 is a “pollutant?”
Don’t bold, progressive ideas have the strength to stand on their own? Without the lies of global warming and the alien belief that CO2 is “toxic??”
tallbloke (03:21:14) :
You win the virtual Grammy! (Yank music award)
This is not socialism, as many posters have suggested, nor is it communism.
Socialism attempts to redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, usually by taxation or nationalisation. But wealth is not simply measured in currency, it is measured in goods and services that can be purchased. It should be clear from this description that the poor will be able to purchase less goods and services because the energy that underpins their creation will be artificially made scarce. The wealthy don’t care because they can afford to purchase carbon certificates.
There is yet a further benefit for the wealthy. The extra cost of purchasing these certificates may seem on the surface to be a penalty, a cost they have to incur to consume. But this ignores the fact that this cost actually buys something else. It buys the exclusion of the poor from rivalrous goods. By rivalrous I mean something like a vacation resort in which, beyond a certain number, individuals become crowds that compete with each other for limited services, like airports, beach space, restaurant etc. A system that imposes energy rationing by pricing will push the poor into marginal facilities, while the rich will be able to enjoy their new found exclusivity. The poor will be marginalised for the benefit of the rich. This is not socialism, it is the complete opposite.
A few generations ago, the UK labour party was a party that unashamedly promoted socialism. Their vision then was more and bigger factories, bigger and better wages for the working class, and more and better vacation opportunities. Their vision was one of optimism towards ever greater consumption by the working classes. By stark contrast, the UK is ruled by a twisted mutation of that former party, now calling itself New Labour. The vision of this party is the exact opposite now. After waiting half a century for the ability to enjoy affordable travel to any country in the world, a New Labour government is now telling the working classes this must stop. A Labour government! This is a government that is unashamedly promoting less consumption for the poor, and the rich can do what they want as long as they buy their carbon certificates from the government.
This is the government of the UK, but it will soon be the government of the US.
This is not socialism. The closest history can offer is the plutocracies of ancient rome, or the feudal barons of the middle ages.
Workers of the world unite!
BTW, I am not a socialist.
Vincent: your
A few generations ago, the UK labour party was a party that unashamedly promoted socialism.
Under these socialists (Labour), personal income tax on the very rich went up to 75%, and even over 90% of income (1950-1963).
Of course, the rich, being sensible folk, and able to afford it, moved away from the UK. And took their money with them.
Which brings up the subject of “leakage”. If government legislation makes it more expensive to do business, then the object of that legislation will “leak” to jurisdictions where conditions are less onerous (see example above).
What you will find with a carbon tax based on wealth, is the rich moving to poorer regions, to avoid the tax. ( I am assuming that a countries emissions cuts will be dictated by the per capita amount of wealth in the country).
So, you heard it here first. Buy land in North Korea. Prices are sure to sky rocket.
Did I hear you say that eventually all countries will be equally wealthy? Lets forget for a moment that even in communist regimes, there were internal regions that were poorer than the group. Instead, think of a CO2 Switzerland, where there are no CO2 reporting laws. And that’s where the rich will be.
Les Johnson,
I agree with your argument entirely, but I did not say that eventually all countries will be equally wealthy.
The point I was trying to make is not that socialism worked, it obviously did not. Dennis Healey famously bragged that he would tax the rich until the pips squeaked, and promptly raised the higher band of income tax to 80%, with another 18% surcharge for unearned income (aka interest). Unsurprisingly, this drove those wealthy enough to afford it to emigrate.
No, I was trying to highlight how a government that purports to represent the working classes has passed legislation to penalise their consumption, and that in the wider, global sense, the proposed cap and trade legislation marginalises the poor and benefits the rich. Therefore it is the antithesis of socialism.
An unstated hypothesis is that people like Gore are like the plutocrats and barons of old who lorded it over the poor. In the middle ages there were usury laws. In the po mo age we will have carbon credits. Perhaps one would have more success with ones senators if these simple truths were pointed out.
Mark (09:00:49) : “Why not go after people who live in colder climates — they use far more energy to heat their homes…. Tax the crap out of people in the northern and southwestern states — nail the Swedes too!”
Don’t forget about the IOC, International Olympic Committee. Not only do they hold these carbon intensive games every 4 years but they spend the preceding year running carbon intensive qualifications.
Don’t forget about FIFA. Constantly holding international events of 22 players running constantly for 90 minutes exhaling all that polluting CO2. Not to mention all the elites that attend the events to scream and sing at the top of their CO2 exhaling lungs.
Then there’s the NCAA, MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, CFL, MLS, IRL, NASCAR and the Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus!!!!
David Ball (08:14:40) :
Planned obsolescence: these 2 words should never have been combined.
I wonder if Sheryl Crow has considered how much co2 spewing energy went into producing her fat new Merc. Or how much went into crushing her old car.
More than she’ll ever save in emissions control I’ll bet.
Indiana Bones (10:29:12) :
tallbloke (03:21:14) :
You win the virtual Grammy! (Yank music award)
Aww Geeee, thank you!
I’d just like to say I couldn’t have achieved this without my tireless hardworking support staff, and my BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
Hmmn.
Lettuce begin by taxing 90% of Hollywood’s money.
Then continue by taking all of New York’s money earned – say, just picking an arbitrary source – by speculating in stocks.
Then we could tax 50% of any money given by the federal government to any receiptant of a non-defense federal W-2, starting with a 75% surcharge on Congress and the White House.
Somehow, it almost seems right when we’re talking about preachy celebs and other elitists who live jet-setter lifestyles while telling the rest of us to live with less.
But I don’t believe in class warfare or in punishing success. Nor has anybody ever found direct evidence that ‘carbon’ is causing any climate changes, so the whole thing is just a load of crap anyway.
Vincent (12:30:08) :
is not that socialism worked, it obviously did not. …. drove those wealthy enough to afford it to emigrate.
Yeah. The aim of the Club of Rome lurking in the background (Tony B Liar is a member) is to institute world government. There will be no co2 tax havens to emigrate to. In the big scheme, it’s felt that we’re better off having all the dirty industry and the concomitant pollution, health and social welfare issues around it hived off to the near and far east. This will leave the west to thrive on hi tech services and research and development. Ho Ho.
The truth is, the populations of the west are going to get shafted, and the jet setters will go to live somewhere warm and tropical when the going gets cold.
I’m saving hard for a bit of land within 9 degrees of the equator, in a culturally rich, religiously tolerant country with no oil reserves to worry about defending. I like walking anyway.
@ur momisugly John Galt (13:47:12) :
“………………………. Nor has anybody ever found direct evidence that ‘carbon’ is causing any climate changes, so the whole thing is just a load of crap anyway.”
Hence, my earlier comment about my septic tank capacity. 🙂
I hate to ask; but who the blazes is Cheryl Crow; and what is her relationship with Daimler Benz company; is this something I need to know ?
George
George, Cheryl is a country singer who gained notoriety a while back for a comment she made about how much toilet paper should be used per sitting. One sheet. Various conservative talk shows ridiculed her for weeks, and she became the poster girl for liberal hippocracy.