CLIMATE EQUALITY: Researchers says that the burden of fighting climate change should fall on rich individuals, whether they live in developed nations or developing ones
Image: BABSTEVE/FLICKR
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
A new framework for reducing carbon emissions takes a crack at the knottiest dilemma confronting a global climate solution: how to divvy cuts between rich and poor nations.
A new study published Monday attempts to sidestep the rancor, finding that virtually every country has a class of individuals—the so-called "high emitters"—enjoying a rich, carbon-intensive lifestyle. If those individuals, no matter their locale, are forced to take responsibility for their emissions, a great swath of countries become participants in the climate effort, the study claims.
"Rich people in poor countries shouldn't be able to hide behind the poor people in those countries," said Robert Socolow, co-director of Princeton's Carbon Mitigation Initiative and a co-author of the study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The problem has dominated talks leading to December's Copenhagen negotiations on a post-Kyoto accord. Developing nations expect the industrialized world to do the heavy lifting on emissions cuts; industrialized countries, noting that the developing world will account for upwards of 97 percent of future emissions growth, want assurances that such growth will be curbed.
The analysis, "Sharing global CO2 emissions reductions among one billion high emitters," by a group of Princeton University researchers, proposes spreading responsibility for reductions among individuals rather than countries.
Under this framework, the international community would draw a single, global line for carbon emissions. Countries would then be responsible for reducing the carbon footprint of individuals living above that line. Emissions from individuals living below the line do not factor into the accounting.
Overall, the researchers found that the United States and China would have the largest carbon dioxide reduction targets, while Russia, India, the Middle East, South Africa and north Africa would all have sizable targets, due to their energy industries.
The proposal also sets a floor for the 3 billion people predicted by 2030 to be emitting less than one ton of carbon dioxide a year. Those people—the poorest of the poor—should focus solely on bettering their lifestyles, and they should do so via any economical means, the authors say.
They can safely come up to one-ton-a-year emissions target without breaking the global carbon bank.
It is folly, in other words, to light 10 villages via solar power when the same money could equip 100 villages with diesel-powered generators, Socolow said.
"There's no reason people at that level have to meet carbon goals," he said. "It starts with the high emitters."
****
The plan is being hailed by many climate experts for this inherent fairness: Industrialized countries bear the brunt of the labor, as those nations have the most residents living above any carbon line. But many nations in the developing world would also have to take some action as their citizenry prospers and begins to enjoy a more carbon-intensive lifestyle.
"Developing countries want attention to fairness," Socolow added. "We can talk about fairness in a way that is defensible in the minds of the high per-capita [emitting] countries.
"It's mischievous, but it's meant to be a logjam-breaking concept."
Indeed, perhaps the most striking aspect of the study, said several climate experts familiar with it, is that by 2030 the world's one billion highest emitters will be spread evenly across four major economic regions of the globe: the United States; the industrialized world minus the U.S.; China; and the developing world minus China.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentThis proposal is similar to a per capita emissions limit. It can not work and is not fair.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe poorest nations on our planet benefit from the technology created by the advanced nations. This technology benefits the few in the less developed nations, and they continue to exploit their poor. It is the intent of the rich in poorer nations to maintain a large poor uneducated community for their benefit. Any help received by their poor comes from the citizens of wealthy nations.
Everyday citizens from the wealthy nations provide huge amounts of aid to the poor. This aid has in fact added to the problem, populations are out of control because of the amount of food aid provided.
At the end of the day population is the underlying cause of climate change. Poor populations clear forests, kill wildlife and breed like rabbits.
Multiple species in an environment neutralise each others impact on the environment. Loss of biodiversity eliminates this neutralising effects.
Climate change is driven by over-population. It is politically correct to blame carbon dioxide and the other emissions for climate change, they are the result of an unsustainable population.
I remember reading an article in the late '80's in one of SA"s competitor's magazine (before it went broke over feeding the readers poorly researched info on some guy who swindled many over an invention heralded by that magazine, but that is another topic) ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article I read was about a legitimate study on the New Zealand sheep population. Explanation being they were concerned because of their proximity to the actual Ozone hole...The study was on the only way I can think of it being called now is 'farts"? My conclusion to reading this was we're all gonna die when the polar ice cap melts because I won't give up my Taco Bell!!
Overpopulation! I agree. However, be it poor or rich countries,I think it fair to have GLOBAL standards in high emission industries and with their vehicles. Make plans that benefit the 'green' up clean up...TRYING to not have one GOOD be canceled by 10 million BADS....and the New Zealand sheep population and Taco Bell.... < Smile>
I wonder how much they would fine Al Gore for his 1000,s of tons of carbon foot print.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"....virtually every country has a class of individuals - the so-called "high emitters" - enjoying a rich, carbon-intensive lifestyle."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the U.S. this class would include congress, movie stars and corporate executives. You know, the ones who lecture ordinary people about carbon emissions. Al Gore is the president of this class.
I think it is unfair to count CO2 emissions on yearly basis for the countries. CO2 is being accumulated in the atmosphere since centuries. I would propose to agree on a date to start to calculate the total emission figures. That is for example starting from year 1900 the total emission produced for the countries should be calculated. Than the total emission produced since 2009-1900= 109 years devided by the population should be calculated. Every country/person should have the right to produce that much of emission found by the max figure calculated by above calculation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be very unfair to put every nation (developed/underdeveloped) in the same benchmark with total CO2 emisision produced today.
I think it is unfair to count CO2 emissions on yearly basis for the countries. CO2 is being accumulated in the atmosphere since centuries. I would propose to agree on a date to start to calculate the total emission figures. That is for example starting from year 1900 the total emission produced for the countries should be calculated. Than the total emission produced since 2009-1900= 109 years devided by the population should be calculated. Every country/person should have the right to produce that much of emission found by the max figure calculated by above calculation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be very unfair to put every nation (developed/underdeveloped) in the same benchmark with total CO2 emisision produced today.
It'll never work. Nobody would let themselves be taken to task for their very lifestyle, least of all the financial and consumer elite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopefully the US Senate will defeat the effort to force the US to destroy it's economy - and the rest of the worlds as well and the skepticism of AGW will continue to grow. Maybe then all the nonsense will stop and we can spend our money developing profitable alternatives to fossil fuels rather than being forced to subsidize unprofitable alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopefully the US Senate will defeat the effort to force the US to destroy it's economy - and the rest of the worlds as well and the skepticism of AGW will continue to grow. Maybe then all the nonsense will stop and we can spend our money developing profitable alternatives to fossil fuels rather than being forced to subsidize unprofitable alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe researchers center this article around the need for individuals above the carbon line even in developing countries to take up responsibilities.The reason given in the afore mentioned article is because of the awareness of the impending damage that could be caused by the developing nations in the future. If the matter is about taking responsibility then one should be made aware of the the past mistakes. Nations that were primarily responsible for industrialisation leading to global warming and intensive enironmental damage must own up to all the past damage and accounted for the present add ons and then only should it be thought that the developing nations individuals must assume equal responsibility as those living in any other part of the world.The extremely conveneint interpretation hold no worth because the problem of global warming cannot be solved by placing responsisbilities in an unfair manner .The entire world is very well aware of the exceedingly essential need to cut down carbon emissions but fuelling it through articles that tell individuals above the carbon emissions line in a small developing nation ( where they maybe a part of the highest income of the country, an industrialist... on who the countries future may depend) is highly skewed and will not be successful as moniotring will become far more difficult on an idividual basis rather than a nation basis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter yet would be to tax fossil carbon sources directly. We know fossil carbon fuel providers will pas these cost on directly as higher prices for their products. Then anyone who consumes more will pay more. This will foster conservation, efficiency improvemements, and investment in renewable carbonless energy sources by anyone using fossil fuels. If you really want to see change, refund 100% of this Fossil Carbon Tax back to consuming individuals as a Dividend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisskbarry,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRefunding the tax back to the consuming individuals will give them no incentive to cut back.
Having said that I am totally opposed to a carbon tax of any kind. I do not believe man is having an appreciable affect on the climate. CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere (less than 1/2 of 1 percent) that, when experiments are done with those concentrations, there is no appreciable temperature increase.
Further proof that this tax is not about reducing consumption is the fact that, as far as greenhouse gasses go, methane and water vapor are far more potent than CO2 but are not covered by these taxes. In fact there are those pushing for hydrogen power - the byproduct of which is water vapor.
This movement is about controlling who gets what and who gets to decide that. It is about global domination by the few. I want no part of it.