<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Indonesia cutting emissions by up to 41 per cent: How?</title> <atom:link href="http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/05/indonesia-cutting-emissions-by-up-to-41-per-cent-how/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/05/indonesia-cutting-emissions-by-up-to-41-per-cent-how/</link> <description>Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:50:38 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator> <item><title>By: David Michael</title><link>http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/05/indonesia-cutting-emissions-by-up-to-41-per-cent-how/comment-page-1/#comment-66494</link> <dc:creator>David Michael</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:12:08 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=7331#comment-66494</guid> <description>Well, it&#039;s not a binding commitment. Should we encourage equally ambitious, non-binding commitments? I think not. Should we encourage binding equipments from countries with poverty problems and low emissions and power consumption. Indonesia&#039;s current CO2 emissions per capita are 1.9 metric tonnes/capita compared to 12.5 in the high income OECD. Indonesia consumes 509 kWh/capita of energy compared to 9,792 in the high income OECD. McKinsey&#039;s analysis is not much short of hubris. There is nothing about implementation difficulties; many costs are ignored or assumed to be picked up by donors; and more importantly what are they on about encouraging emission reductions from a country that already has its fair share of poverty ( would be more than 20% using the $1.50/day benchmark).</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, it&#8217;s not a binding commitment. Should we encourage equally ambitious, non-binding commitments? I think not. Should we encourage binding equipments from countries with poverty problems and low emissions and power consumption. Indonesia&#8217;s current CO2 emissions per capita are 1.9 metric tonnes/capita compared to 12.5 in the high income OECD. Indonesia consumes 509 kWh/capita of energy compared to 9,792 in the high income OECD. McKinsey&#8217;s analysis is not much short of hubris. There is nothing about implementation difficulties; many costs are ignored or assumed to be picked up by donors; and more importantly what are they on about encouraging emission reductions from a country that already has its fair share of poverty ( would be more than 20% using the $1.50/day benchmark).</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Lincoln Fung</title><link>http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/10/05/indonesia-cutting-emissions-by-up-to-41-per-cent-how/comment-page-1/#comment-64442</link> <dc:creator>Lincoln Fung</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:28:21 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=7331#comment-64442</guid> <description>It is an ambitious goal from a developing country and should be encouraged.
There is a strong momentum from the developing members in the G20, like Indonesia and China.
The world should act on climate change and energy efficiency and sustainability.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is an ambitious goal from a developing country and should be encouraged.<br
/> There is a strong momentum from the developing members in the G20, like Indonesia and China.<br
/> The world should act on climate change and energy efficiency and sustainability.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
