The Kyoto Protocol was intended to be a test drive of applying market mechanisms to achieving environmental policy objectives. In addition to this, it has proven what happens when skeptical neoconservatives interfere in a process they never understood nor were party to in the first place. Given the Peugeot model neoconservative, Nicolas Sarkozy, is a firm believer in the need for climate action, there is hope this nonsensical stalemate will not detract from the main game.
The Bali Protocol is the main game. The IPCC's warnings on climate peril are now becoming so strong that it would be a monumental disaster to not at the very least get underlying agreement on a timetable for binding targets for all countries. The question remains how should this be done.
The crux of climate negotiations is how to accommodate both the need to cut greenhouse emissions and the right of countries to develop their economies. The fundamental principle here is that targets must be equitable both on an intergenerational and intragenerational level. Kyoto operated on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which in short means coal-fired Australia got a small increase entitlement on 1990 emission levels while hydro NZ got a small decrease.
Taking this principle up collectively, what the international community should do is divide the emission share of the developed world and the share of the developing world. The first step is to construct a business as usual baseline (BAU) for emissions by say 2100. Then using the IPCC science, establish a desired stabilisation level (DSL). The period during which greenhouse emissions have been sent into the atmosphere could then be broken up into a past and future industrialisation phase, representing the two ages of industrialisation, one for the developed and one for the developing world. The phase change could be the year 2000.
The past and future industrialisation phases can then be calculated by seeing when the DSL will be reached. Say the DSL is 500 ppm and this will be reached by 2050 on BAU. Developed nations could take targets based on both phases, while developing nations could take targets for only 2000 onwards. Developed nation targets could be effective immediately, while developing nations could be deferred until a phase-in date, such as 2020. In the interim, developing nations could sign up for a range of preliminary programmes such as renewable energy targets, afforestation targets or energy efficiency standards.
This would mean that developing countries would have probably met sizable targets during the non-binding period, giving them plenty of scope and development capacity to handle targets once the phase-in date was reached.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
[B]NZBsRus.com[/B]
Forget Idle Downloads With NZB Downloads You Can Instantly Find Movies, Console Games, MP3s, Applications & Download Them @ Blazing Speeds
[URL=http://www.nzbsrus.com][B]Usenet[/B][/URL]
Infatuation casinos? inquire this advanced [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com]casino[/url] advisor and pigeon-hole online casino games like slots, blackjack, roulette, baccarat and more at www.realcazinoz.com .
you can also into our lately [url=http://freecasinogames2010.webs.com]casino[/url] manage at http://freecasinogames2010.webs.com and discipline high-priority compressed dough !
another trendy [url=http://www.ttittancasino.com]casino spiele[/url] purlieus is www.ttittancasino.com , because german gamblers, victim in unrestrained online casino bonus.
I read a article under the same title some time ago, but this articles quality is much, much better. How you do this?
Hey, I am checking this blog using the phone and this appears to be kind of odd. Thought you'd wish to know. This is a great write-up nevertheless, did not mess that up.
- David
Post a Comment