Comments on: A big win for the planet, and others

By: a very public sociologist

a very public sociologist — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:16:45 +0000

Shelby @#2, we’ve already seen a very recent example of some of the problems re: the EU’s announcement that it wants cars manufactured within its jurisdiction to cut the amount of Carbon grams cars release per mile. German chancellor Angela Merkel has opposed it, noting it would mean the ruin of the country’s car industry. If the costs of managing climate change cannot be offloaded onto working people, the ruling class are not interested.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:28:28 +0000

Just two links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2228609,00.html

and the latest n+1.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:01:43 +0000

Actually, hidari, I count the belated issue of a “signing statement” as more good news. Clearly the Bushies realize that they were pushed into signing something they didn’t want. Even their negotiators couldn’t quite stand up to being booed and heckled at an international conference. I don’t imagine their successors in 2009 will want to.

By: Hidari

Hidari — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:59:08 +0000

Incidentally, I wouldn’t break out the champagne just yet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/17/bali.climatechange

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:11:08 +0000

John,

Cool:)

I think that what I proposed is a bit beyond the border tax you point to. I am also certain that what I wrote about is not unique, maybe the package, but certainly not the elements. Still, I think that Eli Rabett’s Patented (pending) Emissions Added Levy has many advantages over carbon taxes/markets and should be further discussed, if only to bring pressure on the wanna be free riders and their horses. I am also sure that there are flaws and needed improvements.

By: Fruits and Votes » Prof. Shugart's Blog » Planet to Australian voters: Thanks

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:26:17 +0000

[...] for the planet. But I agree with John Quiggin (a political scientist and also an Australian) at Crooked Timber, as well as at his own blog, that the recent government change in Australia was significant to [...]

By: Russell Spinney

Russell Spinney — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:25:28 +0000

In the European news last night (BBC/ARD/ZDF) there were pictures of the US delegation backing down from opposition to the difference between industrial and developing nations in the document text and everyone else clapping when the US delegation said they would not oppose the majority. One speaker said, if the US will not help, then please get out of the way. So this has a symbolic echo for the world. Coverage of Gore’s speech has been overall positive, but some commentators felt he stopped too short of more explicitly calling for the US to act (perhaps he is waiting to 2009 now too for Bush to go). In the German press, there has also been some questions about how Germany can even meet its rather robust goals in the coming years. Even for the committed leaders of the world there are problems ahead. Meanwhile, the environment is changing.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:03:29 +0000

Eli, you'll be pleased to know that your idea is already on the table

By: Lee A. Arnold

Lee A. Arnold — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:29:06 +0000

Kyoto was the first step towards a global institution of a new kind, to deal with a new kind of problem. Penalty enforcement under Kyoto is hardly a major issue, as Kyoto was seen all along as merely the first experimental step into this new arena. But institutions of any kind have certain abstract requirements, and one of the first is getting everybody who is affected into them. Things will proceed more quickly after that. We may eventually see penalties attached to trade, because then prices on alternative energies will be more competitive, and after that, public opinion can start to push for the right choices. Already, public opinion in almost every country appears to be 70-90% in favor of doing something. The United States has not been the rational actor: quite the reverse. There is corporate capture of government policy in the United States, promulgating an enormous amount of anti-science propaganda—but the larger trend is inexorable. I don’t think we’ll see much trouble from either India or China—in fact their original complaint (and all along since) has been allowances for development, because the developed world has caused almost all the trouble so far. They have not fallen prey to the self-serving, anti-science poison, like the U.S.

By: The Global Sociology Blog » Blog Archive » International Climate Talks In Bali

Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:02:45 +0000

[...] Quiggin at Crooked Timber had this to say on the Bali UN Conference on climate [...]

By: Bobcat

Bobcat — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:03:30 +0000

I definitely agree with hidari (or rather, hidari’s implication) that China and India, particularly (I’m less sure about the US) will be hard to keep to their word (and I’m not really sure what word they have given). However, I’m more optimistic than otto that suburbanites will be willing to accept some costs, on the lower end of meaningful, but meaningful nonetheless.

By: Order of Magnitude

Order of Magnitude — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:41:10 +0000

In 1998 the US Senate adopted unanimously the Byrd-Hagel resolution which states that the U.S. Senate will not ratify any treaty signed at Kyoto that would impose binding limits on the industrialized nations but not on developing nations within the same compliance period and "would result in serious economic harm to the economy of the United States." If the Dems get the presidency, I look forward to see how they are going to handle it (just like they boldly handled Iraq once they got Congress, right?). From the US perspective (and yes, we should do what's right for us, euroweenies nothwithstanding), the way to solve the climate challenge would be through R&D in clean automobile tech, nuclear power and other green tech and not through yet another worthless intl. agreement we'll keep and others won't. This would create jobs, tax revenue, and maintain US dominance in science and tech. The US should also point out European hypocrisy: the EU only managed to meet Kyoto targets in the aggregate through a sleigh of hand, namely dismantling Eastern European smokestacks. Europe, as usual, distracts the naives by focusing anger at the US. Plus don't discount the usual factors: European envy at US economic power, US consumer culture and wealth grafted onto their socialistic dreams, thirld worldist idealism, etc. As for Gore (the new Jimmy "I whine about my country in front of sympathetic foreign audiences" Carter) he may start by leading through personal example. So Saint Al, downsize the McMansion and pour your own money into green technology. For a poor liberal arts academic, living w/ a small carbon footprint is not virtue, it's a necessity, so many of the crooked timber types don't get credit here. I'd love to see some of the saints in your green Pantheon walk the walk, though.

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:28:59 +0000

While I agree with you about Bali, the central problem remains how deal with the recalcitrant. Eli has a modest suggestion

By: wab

wab — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:26:55 +0000

Yes, targets are fairly meaningless unless there is a sensible way to meeting the targets. (Does anyone believe that the Kyoto Treaty made any difference to the carbon emissions today relative to what would have happened had the treaty not existed?) What we need is a global carbon tax (or the equivalent). The way things stand now, if the EU stops producing steel and imports it from China, the EU emissions have officially gone down, which is a nonsense. Emissions should be counted by consumption, not production. And the way to do that is to have a global carbon tax, set at a level to achieve the targets. Anybody who is just pushing for targets (especially just for the developed countries only) is just playing games. Of course then there is the issue of how you enforce the carbon tax, and what happens with the money, and that is what people should be focussing on, not just targets.

By: Hidari

Hidari — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:00:16 +0000

This strikes me as a good deal. HOWEVER (and this is an extremely big however) how are ‘we’ going to penalise people who do not meet their targets: especially if these people include China, India and the United States? What precisely are ‘we’ going to do about it?

For example: the (2012) Kyoto targets. The EU (on the whole) is going to miss them (as things stand). What’s going to happen to the EU? How will it be penalised? And by whom?