| Author | Message | ||
     Ferris_von_bueller |
New climate strategy: track the world's wealthiest 06 Jul 2009 21:00:13 GMT 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. Look at the red highlighted sections. This means YOU and ME are the "rich" that need tracking !! I'm beginning to believe we are either heading for tyranny or revolution. | ||
| Xl1200r |
Crap crap crap. It's all crap. So the rich guy driving the Prius and living in the new house with the high tech insulation and ultra-effecient furnace and appliances pollutes more than the poor guy driving the 1984 Oldsmobile Cutlass living in a drafty shack buring oil for heat and 15 year old appliances?????? (Message edited by xl1200r on July 06, 2009) | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
No, I believe you're missing the point. The definition of "rich" they are using is not the same as you and I would think of it as. "Rich", in their context, would be everyone in the U.S. It's a global comparison and in that respect an employee at McDonalds would be "rich" in comparison to someone in China or India. | ||
| Reepicheep |
From those as they are able, to those as they have need. Climate Change is Dogma, take it from a devout Christian (who knows mindless dogma when he see's it). | ||
| Spiderman |
My Karma ran over your Dogma  but seriously it's all crap. Much like the protesters who burn hummers to 'save' the earth but probably put more harmful plastic/paint/rubber chems in the air than the veihical woulda produced in it's liftime... | ||
| Glitch |
From those as they are able, to those as they have need.  | ||
| Madduck |
I would be intersted in this "mobile emitter" classification that isn't being discussed. There are a huge number of these "mobile emitters" that generate significant greenhouse gases yet have a negative impact of global gdp. Say 90% of the population of the "developing world". They burn off vast quantities of carbon sinks, trees, just to sustain there own existence, contributing nothing to the economy of the world. The US on the other hand generates about 25% of the global GDP with roughly 23% of the worlds population. All of our "mobile emitters" are thus to be treasured not taxed. If you can't demonstrate contribution to global GDP should these "mobile emitters" be allowed to continue their wanton destruction of the planet?? Everyon has to do their share to save the planet, this is a cirsis after all, and all options should be under discussion. | ||
| Hexangler |
Revolution will produce too many emissions! Science will eventually change your mind (Mr. cut an paste): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/09063 0132005.htm ScienceDaily (July 6, 2009) — The vast amount of carbon stored in the arctic and boreal regions of the world is more than double that previously estimated, according to a study published this week. The amount of carbon in frozen soils, sediments and river deltas (permafrost) raises new concerns over the role of the northern regions as future sources of greenhouse gases. "We now estimate the deposits contain over 1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere", said Dr. Charles Tarnocai, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, and lead author. Dr. Pep Canadell, Executive Director of the Global Carbon Project at CSIRO, Australia, and co-author of the study says that the existence of these super-sized deposits of frozen carbon means that any thawing of permafrost due to global warming may lead to significant emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Carbon deposits frozen thousands of years ago can easily break down when permafrost thaws releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, according to another recent study by some of the same authors. "Radioactive carbon dating shows that most of the carbon dioxide currently emitted by thawing soils in Alaska was formed and frozen thousands of years ago. The carbon dating demonstrates how easily carbon decomposes when soils thaw under warmer conditions," said Professor Ted Schuur, University of Florida and co-author of the paper. The authors point out the large uncertainties surrounding the extent to which permafrost carbon thawing could further accelerate climate change. "Permafrost carbon is a bit of a wildcard in the efforts to predict future climate change," said Dr Canadell. "All evidence to date shows that carbon in permafrost is likely to play a significant role in the 21st century climate given the large carbon deposits, the readiness of its organic matter to release greenhouse gases when thawed, and the fact that high latitudes will experience the largest increase in air temperature of all regions." Carbon in permafrost is found largely in northern regions including Canada, Greenland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Russia, Scandinavia and USA. The carbon assessment is published this week in the journal of Global Biogeochemical Cycles (GB2023, doi:10.1029/2008GB003327) of the American Geophysical Union, and the radiocarbon study was recently published in the journal of Nature. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I need to get me one of those spinning sickle and hammers. |
