Comments on: The politically possible: How to achieve success in Copenhagen http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/12/16/the-politically-possible-how-to-achieve-success-in-copenhagen/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:23:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Lincoln Funghttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/12/16/the-politically-possible-how-to-achieve-success-in-copenhagen/comment-page-1/#comment-85068 Lincoln Fung Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:17:23 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=8582#comment-85068 There appears to be a hole in the argument in this article. This can be revealed by examining the formulas the article's author employed: "Emission targets can be determined by formulas that: (1) give lower-income countries more time before they start to cut emissions and (2) lead to a gradual convergence of emissions per capita over the course of the century, while (3) taking care not to reward any country for joining the system late." Part (2) of the formulas states convergence of emissions per capita over time. If this is a fair goal, then why do we not use it to determine the levels of emissions for all countries? The avoidance of using it now just illustrates the hypocritical nature or maybe stupidity of those arguing in favour of developed countries, to enjoy much higher living standards at the expense of developing countries in which many people still live in very poor and cold conditions. The most fair and practical way to have an international agreement is to apply the principle of equal per capita emissions rights. The use of a global carbon tax to tax emissions due to their negative effects on the climate, and then distribute the carbon tax proceeds on an equal per capita basis for everyone around the globe. It is such a simple and powerful concept and principle. Some people cannot understand it yet, but many people just simply ignore it or hide it for their convenience. Then they come up with various bizarre and illogic arguments. There appears to be a hole in the argument in this article. This can be revealed by examining the formulas the article’s author employed: “Emission targets can be determined by formulas that: (1) give lower-income countries more time before they start to cut emissions and (2) lead to a gradual convergence of emissions per capita over the course of the century, while (3) taking care not to reward any country for joining the system late.”

Part (2) of the formulas states convergence of emissions per capita over time. If this is a fair goal, then why do we not use it to determine the levels of emissions for all countries? The avoidance of using it now just illustrates the hypocritical nature or maybe stupidity of those arguing in favour of developed countries, to enjoy much higher living standards at the expense of developing countries in which many people still live in very poor and cold conditions.

The most fair and practical way to have an international agreement is to apply the principle of equal per capita emissions rights. The use of a global carbon tax to tax emissions due to their negative effects on the climate, and then distribute the carbon tax proceeds on an equal per capita basis for everyone around the globe.

It is such a simple and powerful concept and principle.

Some people cannot understand it yet, but many people just simply ignore it or hide it for their convenience. Then they come up with various bizarre and illogic arguments.

]]>