www.climatechange.gov.au/government/reduce/national-targets/factsheet.aspx

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 5:49pm:


China now exceeds the U.S. in the deployment of clean energy and in government investments to further develop renewable technologies.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 5:49pm:


It is not so absurd once you consider the reality, or the morality, of asking China to meet stricter standards than us.

Basic fairness is not bleeding heart nonsense. Unless you plan on pointing a gun at the Chinese and telling them that they are only entitled to 1/10th the emissions we are then your alternative simply will not work. Surely you understand the concept of something not working, even if you have no concept of fairness? The Chinese do not share your delusion that the historical geopolitical accident that happened to group them into a larger group than us means they have to put up with your self indulgent crap. You are right that they are a bigger problem. You are wrong that this excuses us from doing our part, or that being one-eyed and selfish will somehow help solve the problem.

Andrei, you are the one attempting to argue that some countries should act and others not. No-one else here is.

Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 10:09am:



That is the basis of the Kyoto Protocol

195 countries signed up to it and most have ratified - but only 32 of the countries (who signed and ratified) are penalised if it failed to meet the targets

this list is found in Annexure A

this is the epitome of some doing and others don't

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:15am:


This might make sense from a nation-state view of the world - where all these individual countries just do their own thing.

But they don’t. China’s emissions are high because it’s the world’s manufacturer.

Switzerland’s emissions are low because it’s the world’s banker.

The world is a global economy. The "bleeding hearts" are not giving India and China and India a free license to pollute. The world relies on their production capacity. If China doesn’t manufacture all that stuff, that production goes somewhere else. The global economy is about borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The Kyoto convergence strategy is exactly this - assisting India and China to converge their development with the more developed countries.

It’s not bleeding heart nonsense. If the world’s economy does not converge, we’ll merely see polluters country-shopping. As Andrei knows, this is standard business practice. The multinationals are competing for all that cheap labour and low environmental standards. Based on development in Latin America and South East Asia over the last 30 years, once India and China develop their economies, they will pollute less. Developed countries with urban middle classes and service economies create less greenhouse gasses and deforestation. Pollution and deforestation rely on poverty.

It’s not bleeding heart nonsense, it’s hard economics. If the biggest polluters are encouraged to develop, they’ll pollute less in the long run. Again, this is not some socialist dream, but based on economic data. GDP and carbon emissions correlate. Economic growth and carbon emissions correlate. They generally peak when countries go through the cowboy stage of development, and reduce with urbanisation and the development of more efficient transport and energy systems. Basically, developed countries produce more with less.  It’s called efficiency.

Inefficient developing countries have bad electricity grids, poor roads and untrained people - hence no one wants to do business there and they become poorer and less efficient: the poverty trap.

Developed countries have good energy and transportation systems, hence it’s cheaper to transport goods and services and set up shop there. To become developed, countries rely on foreign investment. Without this, they’ll continue cutting down forests to burn wood, using generators for electricity, and generally sitting there baking in the sun and staying poor. Well, running around madly carrying water on their heads and taking their goods to market on mules - if they have them. Poverty is a huge waste of energy.

This is why developing industrial countries like China and India are given some leeway: the Kyoto convergence strategy. And it’s working. China is slowly coming around to more sustainable energy sources.

However, if the developed world - including the highest per capita emitter, Australia - relies totally on the developing world to lower their emissions, there is bad will all round. India is still in the pre-contemplation stage of moving to a low carbon economy. It does look at Australia and think, bugger it. Why should we do it all? Most of our population are farmers running around madly carrying water on their heads. How can they seriously ask us to place the cost of more expensive, low-emmitting energy onto them?

So, sure there’s a bleeding heart element to this debate. There are parts of India with no power at all. How can Australia seriously expect people who have not even put in basic infrastructure to reduce their C02 emissions?

The economy, based on all that activity and energy, profitable or not - is global. Until there is a semblance of a level playing field, the world will not become more efficient or more environmentally sustainable. This isn’t a bleeding heart ideal, it’s a basic economic fact.

The countries with the highest levels of economic growth will continue to be high consumers of energy. They will continue to produce all that C02 because we will continue to consume their goods and services. And because they’re cheaper, without regulation, we’ll be forced to.

Yes, friends, this is how the world works, bleeding hearts and all.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:04pm:


Exactly. And companies do that all the time.

But that’s not the point - we RELY on Chinese manufacturing. It’s the reason why the real cost of manufactured goods has lowered dramatically over the last 20 years.

This will not stop. China  is, and will continue to be, the world’s manufacturing centre. The only people giving China a free ticket are the companies that outsource their production there - and the consumers who buy manufactured goods.

Which is everyone.

How can a company blame one of its centers for high production costs when that centre is the engine room of the entire operation?

China might be currently in a polluted haze, but so was Amerika, so was Mother England.

Until we can develop less polluting sources of energy, this will continue, and this is exactly why the developing and developed worlds need to price carbon and invest in more sustainable alternatives.