The success penalty

Sheryl Crow and her Mercedes Bluetec Diesel SUV - click for story

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)

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

109 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark
July 7, 2009 3:54 pm

Re, Vincent (10:42:05):
Vincent,
You said “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. ”
Well, this is true. However, you’re missing the other part of this and that is that part of those massive energy revenues will be most likely redistributed back to low-income people within developed nations. You don’t seriously believe that governments are going to make it harder for low-income people by making things more expensive for them, do you?

July 7, 2009 3:59 pm

Johnny Honda is onto something. Perhaps we should turn it into a “pledge.” “I pledge to keep my carbon footprint smaller than Al Gore’s.”
I like it!
It’s high time that Gore and his Hollywood Hypocrites got called on it. May the shovel-ready material hit the fan.

July 7, 2009 5:02 pm

How big a house does one need?
About 20 sq ft per person. Room enough for a bed a chair and a very small cook stove.

July 7, 2009 5:05 pm

You don’t seriously believe that governments are going to make it harder for low-income people by making things more expensive for them, do you?
Actually – yes I do.
We have the example of Zimbabwe to show what can be done if we really get serious.
http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/07/meeting_the_tar.html

July 7, 2009 6:21 pm

M. Simon (17:02:02) :
How big a house does one need?
About 20 sq ft per person. Room enough for a bed a chair and a very small cook stove.

And if they feed you at the communal tables down the corridor, your cell (er, house) for you and youe entire family only needs to be 6 ft wide x 8 ft long …

Vincent
July 8, 2009 4:21 am

Mark, you wrote: “However, you’re missing the other part of this and that is that part of those massive energy revenues will be most likely redistributed back to low-income people within developed nations.”
You are probably right, but therein lies the dilema. If energy is taxed to make it too expensive, and the revenue from this tax is then given back to those who would be unable to purchase it, then suddenly they will be able to purchase it, thus defeating the whole purpose of the exercise. Emissions will never decrease under this scenario.
When I said that cap and trade marginalises the poor, I was referring to the idealized or pure concept of cap and trade. I understand that the current bill is loaded with just such contingencies that you refer to. Therefore it won’t work.

Mike M
July 8, 2009 2:02 pm

Is that a GL320 SUV that Sheryl is driving? It’s EPA rating is 17/23 MPG. About the same as my 99 Ford Taurus … whoop dee doo Sheryl, here, have another square on me!
I think what cap n’ trade (or “tax n’ crap”, whatever) might do is expand welfare to a global scale whereby the people of the 3rd world will become totally dependent receiving money to NOT use their own energy resources, (by them selling us their “carbon credits”), so that rich elitists can then take control of those resources. That will prevent 3rd world countries from having any hope of ever becoming rich thus sentencing them to huge populations, poverty and disease forever. Add in the bio-fuel mandate and you can add starvation to the list.
Are you listening in Nigeria? Why wait, start printing up those carbon credits right now! (and to show respect for Sheryl, print them on toilet paper).

July 8, 2009 3:47 pm

Ann’s New Friend (15:59:27) : said
“Johnny Honda is onto something. Perhaps we should turn it into a “pledge.” “I pledge to keep my carbon footprint smaller than Al Gore’s.”
I hereby volunteer to keep my carbon footprint below that of Sting and Bono.
Obviously we are setting ourselves tough targets but someone needs to take a lead. 🙂
Tonyb

1 3 4 5