Comments on: Bush wrong on India and China and climate change

By: Lincoln Fung

Lincoln Fung — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:54:02 +0000

While there can be many different arguments, as Zhang and others may have done so, the most realistic and practical way in the most simplest manner, in concept, could be characterised as to apply a global carbon tax so to achieve whatever the target would need to be, then distribute this global revenue to the world population (maybe based on a certain time) equally, that is equal per capita. This will address many problems except the historical causes. But that point could be regarded as “bygone as bygone” (we won’t hold those dead people to be responsible for solving our future climate problems), if and when the current allocation can be done on an equal per capita basis.
Based on this principle, other scheme broadly consistent with this can be designed and implemented.

By: Confused Protectionists « East Asia Forum

Confused Protectionists « East Asia Forum — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 07:18:32 +0000

[...] an ETS but we also need to demonstrate leadership in the management of global warming. There are good reasons why developed countries carry this responsibility. Gans’ starting-point is that wealthy countries [...]

By: Hamlet

Hamlet — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:04:21 +0000

I wish Lewis.
Unless GHG allocations are made, the dynamic of convergence remains intangible. If a Treaty of AC exists and has signatory emmitters or States, I could find neither, so I can not address this ‘solution’ directly (links anyone?).
I respect the ideal that polluting goods and services should be taxed for externalities, and in principle the theory that they (or their customers)) could end up paying fairly for it in that way.
But the problem remains the allocation.
My earlier example (25 July) describes the situation, I believe, when equitable economic activities of individuals are going to be squeezed out, because they’re collocated nationally with others that (through international sponsorship) drive up the local cost of carbon.
If you are familiar with the resource ‘curse’ you shall recognise the parallel issue I raise.
Finally I think it is economically responsible to sympathise with innovative and industrious individuals, striving to maximise the utility of resource allocations, wherever and in whatever circumstances they find themselves.

By: Lewis Cleverdon

Lewis Cleverdon — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:33:07 +0000

Hamlet appears to be mistaken in assuming that a Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons founded on Contraction & Convergence will support continued Business-As-Usual.
It will not. In fact, BAU is already over.
The very dynamic of converging the allocations of (tradable) GHG emission-entitlements toward per capita parity transforms the calculus firstly of just what is to be produced, and only secondarily of where the product will be processed.
Thus in the example Hamlet posed as problematic, firstly, under C&C all countries have a detectable value on their emission entitlement which they can trade at will; i.e there are no countries without de facto emissions constraints. This means that where the relevant volume of emission-entitlements is transferred, the recipient industrial processing will not be relocated,
Notably any such relocation would still use up those emission entitlements and thus nullify their value to country B.
Secondly, the function of county A having to purchase emission entitlement of course acts to raise the price of their product, thus making non-polluting alternative products and behaviours more competitive.
As examples, I look forward to the worldwide restoration of re-used glass bottles for drinks displacing the wasteful and disreputable provision, trashing & re-smelting of aluminium drink cans,
and, similarly, to the provision of extensive new rail transport displacing a further fraction of aluminium demand for the aircraft industries.
In this manner C&C does accommodate competitive advantage in the dynamic sense of encouraging its shift to those countries not merely with abundant sustainable resources (e.g. forestry, farmland, natural energy flux etc.) but particularly to those with the innovative drive and adaptability to rapidly reform both their industries and their social behaviours.

By: Hamlet

Hamlet — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:07:09 +0000

Arguable equitable but comparative advantage is not accomodated e.g. if country A has bauxite and strong emission controls while country B has none of either; then the world will end up paying more in cash as well as CO2 to process bauxite in country B instead of country A.
nb – a CO2 tax on embedded emmissions doesn’t alleviate the problem: it probably wouldn’t recognise whether non-polluting manufacturing technologies were being used, and would increase the transport of bulky goods for no utility or economic benefit.

By: Contraction and Convergence: a new hope for emissions « East Asia Forum

Contraction and Convergence: a new hope for emissions « East Asia Forum — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:45:55 +0000

[...] The challenges of international climate equity are well taken up by Yongsheng Zhang in this post. He suggests that emissions rights may be allocated on an equal per capita basis. Indeed equal per [...]

By: Hamlet

Hamlet — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:28:15 +0000

‘The problem of carbon emmission rights allocation among all countries is a problem …’

Agreed Horatio, but only because the economically responsible solution only exists outside that framework. The problem is how to map or transpose emmission rights in a way that accomodates the transient nature not only of populations, but also comparative advantage due to natural resource distribution which is not only non-equitable but also discovered and then depleted.