Quote:

---

For example why set China's ceiling to Germany's? Why not France's, or Iceland's, or the USA's?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

For example why set China's ceiling to Germany's? Why not France's, or Iceland's, or the USA's?

---

There ARE some differences to be looked into- climate, particularly. Nations which are very hot, or very cold, or very dry, prolly need more energy per capita than nations in very temperate climates.

For example, I looked at the per capita of a number of nations. Costa Rica is pretty low, and their standard of living is decent. It's tempting to use them as an example of what nations could achieve if they tried. But Costa Rica doesn't manufacture much. Its main source of revenue is tourism. And Cost Rica is by and large a livable, well-watered nation, plus it's very small. Hardly a reasonable paradigm for other nations. Cuba, with roughly the same per capita and climate, doesn't have the same standard of living because it doesn't receive the foreign dollars that Costa Rica does. But it is a more realistic example of a small economy with that level of energy intensity. Setting the minimum somewhere near Cuba would provide a survivable standard of living for developing countries, altho people would naturally aspire to greater.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

But if China has the same emission per capita as developed countries, why isn't it considered a developed country as well?

---

Because it's not a developed country. And it has the same emissions per capita as some developed countries - not all.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So you don't have an idea of Moderate emission increases

---

Minimising emissions growth of developing countries IS the idea. And it's the only realistic approach. It's either that or unrestrained emissions growth for developing countries. But you're right that you do need to establish a ceiling for each particular country - but I would say one that is suited to each country's unique energy situation. For example why set China's ceiling to Germany's? Why not France's, or Iceland's, or the USA's?

---

Quote:

---

There ought to be fair logic that goes into this decision, not just arbitrariness backed with emotional appeals.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

An emotional appeal for why we have to treat China hard, while the US gets it relatively easy.
Not to the people who die.

---

Doesn't make sense.

---

Quote:

---

LONDON, Sept 26 (Reuters) - More than 100 million people will die and the global economy will miss out on as much as 3.2 percent of its potential output annually by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.

As global average temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA.

It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.

More than 90 percent of those deaths will occur in developing countries, said the report that calculated the human and economic impact of climate change on 184 countries in 2010 and 2030. It was commissioned by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a partnership of 20 developing countries threatened by climate change.

"A combined climate-carbon crisis is estimated to claim 100 million lives between now and the end of the next decade," the report said.

It said the effects of climate change was already costing the global economy a potential 1.6 percent of annual output or about $1.2 trillion a year, and this could double to 3.2 percent by 2030 if global temperatures are allowed to rise.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And you don't consider your "NOT FAIR" complaint an emotional appeal?

---

No, fairness is the essence of pragmatism here. An 'unfair' deal will never be implemented, and if it were, there'd be backlash in the harshly penalised countries, and it would be scrapped.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In other words, you can't support them.

---

I could, but I would be making complex, nuanced arguments to somebody who rejects the validity of a straight line on a graph, if it suits him.

---

Quote:

---

So, as I asked above, what would be your breakpoint at which they become "developed"?

---

Quote:

---

They already have more emissions per capita than Iceland or France, and as noted above, will overtake Germany in four or five years. The U.S. should be working to it's emissions down to around 2.5 - 3 tonnes per capita where most of the developed nations are.

---

Quote:

---

So what's fair?

---

Quote:

---

Should China be able to destroy everyone else's planet in the quest for economic fairness?

---

Quote:

---

As noted in my response to SignyM above, it's "only" 100 million in the next 16 years

---

Quote:

---

I would be making complex, nuanced arguments to somebody who rejects the validity of a straight line on a graph, if it suits him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

So, as I asked above, what would be your breakpoint at which they become "developed"?

---

I didn't invent the term 'developed country', nor am I using my own special definition. Why ask me to explain it? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

---

Quote:

---

None of this answers my question. Or my point, that your setting China's emissions to Germany's is completely arbitrary. (And I know that Iceland and France have lower per capita emissions than China, that was part of my point, but nvm)

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So what's fair?

---

Some of my thoughts on the matter are in the post to Sig above.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Should China be able to destroy everyone else's planet in the quest for economic fairness?

---

Since the ONLY possible climate deal will be a fair one, the quest for fairness is a quest to SAVE the planet. China's emissions have to peak very soon. We more or less agree about that. I'm actually not arguing setting Germany as a target for China - I'm just pointing out the arbitrariness of the decision. The arbitrariness and unfairness of your system *really* kicks in with your setting crippling emissions ceilings on very poor countries.

---

Quote:

---

From their current GNI, looks like China is in the "Upper middle income countries" category, which the World Bank does not consider "Developing". They instead fit into Newly Industrialized Countries (NIC), which fits "...between developed and developing countries, and ... includes South Africa, Mexico, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, India, Philippines, Thailand and Turkey."

---

Quote:

---

Germany seems to be a good example of the emissions level a developed and prosperous country can sustain. Any particular reason you think China should have a higher level that that?

---

Quote:

---

Countries that are larger need higher limits due to transportation needs.

---

Quote:

---

So why would a German level of emissions per capita be "crippling" to China?

---

Quote:

---

Do you have any emissions goals for China that you consider "fair"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Glad that's settled.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Germany seems to be a good example of the emissions level a developed and prosperous country can sustain. Any particular reason you think China should have a higher level that that?

---

Why not Korea? Or Japan? Or Iceland? Or France? Why is Germany's emission level exactly right for China?

---

Quote:

---

If you want to know my thoughts, I think if CO2 was not a greenhouse gas and global warming was not an issue, China's CO2 emissions per capita would eventually settle at a level closer to the US's than to Germany's.

---

Quote:

---

Now obviously the planet can not afford for China to be as polluting as America (this is the point you keep going on about, which is funny coming from an American, especially when you get all moralistic about it).

---

Quote:

---

But nevertheless, if we were to be completely laissez faire, I'd say that was China's 'natural' level. I think these natural levels (or estimates of them) have to be taken into consideration when we devise targets for countries - especially non-developed countries whose low emissions are mainly a factor of their under-developed economies.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So why would a German level of emissions per capita be "crippling" to China?

---

I never said it would. I specifically said 'very poor' countries. A German ceiling would still be costly to China though, just like it would be costly to the US, if immediately applied.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Do you have any emissions goals for China that you consider "fair"?

---

Roughly, that it's emissions ought to peak within the next ~6 years (without a dramatic increase up to that point) and thereafter decline at a steady pace. But this would be part of a global climate deal with all countries offering and making cuts that cost them just as much. China would never do this unilaterally, nor should they be expected to.

---

Quote:

---

So no more "China is a developing country" from you.

---

Quote:

---

So what part of the word "example" do you not understand?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
But nevertheless, if we were to be completely laissez faire, I'd say that was China's 'natural' level. I think these natural levels (or estimates of them) have to be taken into consideration when we devise targets for countries - especially non-developed countries whose low emissions are mainly a factor of their under-developed economies.


Interesting in that I think the U.S.'s emissions are too high and should be reduced to the 2.5 tonnes per capita range.

---

Quote:

---

Then why would it be crippling to other poor countries?

---

Quote:

---

As noted above several times, China has said repeatedly that they will not put a cap on emissions in their 13th Five Year Plan...

---

Quote:

---

But the government, notorious for being tight-lipped, secretive and unresponsive, had declined. In fact, few people actually believed that Beijing would ever accede to their demands.
Well, guess what? Beijing has ordered 15,000 factories to report details about their emissions: in public, and in real-time.

---

Quote:

---

If you look at the numbers, perhaps we should have seen this coming.
According to the World Bank, the impacts of China's environmental degradation costs the country 9 percent of its Gross National Income. Studies by a number of journals show that more than a million Chinese die prematurely every year because of the country's poor air quality.

---

Quote:

---

The good news – for China, and the world – is that Beijing seems to be listening. China has promised to spend $280 billion dollars cleaning up its air. According to information from the International Energy Agency: China's carbon emissions per unit of GDP have dropped by half since the 1990s. Massive investments in wind and solar energy mean that China hopes to get 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
More on China's plans to curb emissions: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/17/chinas-bold-environ
mental-move/

Quote:

---

But the government, notorious for being tight-lipped, secretive and unresponsive, had declined. In fact, few people actually believed that Beijing would ever accede to their demands.
Well, guess what? Beijing has ordered 15,000 factories to report details about their emissions: in public, and in real-time.

---

Quote:

---

If you look at the numbers, perhaps we should have seen this coming.
According to the World Bank, the impacts of China's environmental degradation costs the country 9 percent of its Gross National Income. Studies by a number of journals show that more than a million Chinese die prematurely every year because of the country's poor air quality.

---

Quote:

---

The good news – for China, and the world – is that Beijing seems to be listening. China has promised to spend $280 billion dollars cleaning up its air. According to information from the International Energy Agency: China's carbon emissions per unit of GDP have dropped by half since the 1990s. Massive investments in wind and solar energy mean that China hopes to get 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

---

Would you like to change your predictions Geezer?

---

Quote:

---

And I see CNN is also pushing the emissions per GDP shell game.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

And I see CNN is also pushing the emissions per GDP shell game.

---

A universally accepted metric, used by all the major energy agencies in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity

---

Quote:

---

Per other sources, it's not so much to have them reduce emissions, as to get a baseline for cap-and-trade so they can keep emitting and buy carbon credits from elsewhere.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Emissions/GDP does not tell the whole story about a country's emissions - far from it. Used on its own, it can give quite a misleading picture. And yet, all the world's energy agencies use this metric, and rank countries by it, so it must have some significance. What do you understand that significance to be Geezer?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Per other sources, it's not so much to have them reduce emissions, as to get a baseline for cap-and-trade so they can keep emitting and buy carbon credits from elsewhere.

---

Only just saw this. I would like to see the passage that you get this bit of analysis from Geezer.

---

Quote:

---

There is widespread speculation that China is to launch its own national cap and trade system by the middle of the decade. This would force companies to offset their emissions through the purchase of carbon credits. The Chinese are hoping that having an extensive emissions database made available through carbon reporting before the launch of the scheme will allow them to escape the problems of over-supply which the EU initially faced after the launch of its own scheme in 2005.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Emissions/ GDP is a poor metric, because GDP itself is measured poorly.

Much USA GDP is in financial transactions, not in production. By flooding the markets with money, it's possible to raise GDP artificially... boosting allowable carbon dioxide emissions in a way that's decoupled from actual increases in production or actual increases in infrastructural/manufacturing capacity. I think a simple carbon dioxide emissions per capita is a more reliable measure.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Per other sources, it's not so much to have them reduce emissions, as to get a baseline for cap-and-trade so they can keep emitting and buy carbon credits from elsewhere.

---

Quote:

---

It's a shell game, as I noted before. It's a way for governments (especially in places where GDP is sharply rising) to present figures that make it appear they're reducing emissions while still increasing them - sometimes greatly.

A trick. A fraud. A con game.

---

Quote:

---

I agree. Can't see any reason to couple emissions and money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Telling a thread that you don't give a shit is the exact opposite of what you're doing when you post that in a thread. If it really is of no concern to you, just don't post. Period. But instead, you overtly ignore the ISSUE being discussed in the thread, and then intentionally insult the poster by CLAIMING ( falsely )
indifference. There mere fact you posted in the thread shows otherwise.

Quote:

---

Then I mention Limbaugh is a blue pill addict - which he is.

---

Not germane to the topic, at all. Or ANY topic in which you constantly post that as part of your sig. You're just trying to interject disparaging remarks about a radio personality, in a petty attempt to besmirch his character.

Quote:

---

On top of that I QUOTE THEM BOTH.

---

You MISQuote, first of all, and then frame quotes in the most absurd and false characterization for the purpose of painting a false image , simply because you lack the intellectual substance to even TRY to have an adult, rational dialogue.

Quote:

---

Of all the insults, BEING QUOTED has got to be the worst. Oh the horror of being quoted ...

---

Lying about what others say , for the sole purpose of trying to insult them, shows extremely low character. Since you value none of that which is honest, decent or sincere, pointing these things out to you was a complete waste of time. But it is what it is.


So, does anyone have anything to say about the UN's *climate chief* coming straight out and saying that Communism, instead of free market capitalism, is the way to fight the fictitious issue of AGW, and that China, which is the world's biggest polluter, is the model which should be followed ?

Anyone ? Anyone ?


( really, a climate chief ? Is that what we're paying for ? )

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

---