4 ms·

It's pretty rational of them (and arguably, morally upright): emissions-per-capita is caused by a high standard of living (barring a few confounding factors), a

It's pretty rational of them (and arguably, morally upright): emissions-per-capita is caused by a high standard of living (barring a few confounding factors), and industrialized nations are asking China to restrict themselves to a much lower emissions-per-capita than we are targeting ourselves.

netcan 17y ago
The only deal anyone is really talking about is reduction in emissions based on 1990 (or perhaps some other date) levels. Rich countries make faster, deeper cuts and subsidize cuts in poor countries. Pretty much any variations are within that framework. I think there is also a perceived unfairness or indignation surrounding the issues. Depending on how you present things, it's always possible to present you country as getting screwed. There are always those whos agenda (which might even be legit) it serves to tell people they are being screwed. In every country in the world there are powerful people going around with that message. Rich Countries: * You are expected to make emitting carbon more expensive here then it is in other countries. That means that steel mills, factories & the like will shut down & reopened in China. Jobs will be shipped overseas(embellishment) No emissions are prevented since the factory gets reopened in India/China anyway. * This is a plan to tax US/EU suppliers a& transfer this money to China/India. Poor Countries: * You are expected to pay for the problems created by those countries with over 100 years of industrialized history. * Going by 1990 levels means dividing a world environmental resource. Since we were polluting 1/5 as much as US/EU in 1990, we get a smaller slice in the future. (related) This deal means that whoever polluted in the past is entitled to polluted in the future. *There is a known quantity (whatever it takes to get from 380 to 450 ppm) of carbon we can emmit globally. Divide that by 6 billion. Each one of these arguments is true in a way.
- pyre 17y ago
  HN wraps blocks that are prefixed with 2+ spaces in <pre><code> tags so, you'll probably want to word-wrap things yourself.
lutorm 17y ago
I never saw what actual per-capita emissions were on the table. Did they really want the developing nations to stay at a lower value indefinitely?
- netcan 17y ago
  Yes. That is pretty much the only kind of deal that gets talked about. The discussion is always about cutting or freezing. Sometimes it's about slowing growth, then freezing then cutting. The "inequality" of the deal will allow developing countries to get a little closer to developed country per capita emissions, but overall proportions are supposed to remain prety much fixed. So, if China currently emits 4.5 X US per capita, that may become 3 X at some point. It will never be 1=1. The reason for this is pragmatic. Demanding the developed countries cut till they reach China levels while China continues to grow emissions will take too long. {edit} I forgot to mention the other non pragmatic approach that some see as fair. Developing countries should be allowed to continue emitting carbon until their historical effect on atmospheric carbon equals that of the west. This solution locks in catastrophe at some point. (I fee like I need to qualify these sentences with "If the assumptions about climate change are close to correct")
  - NonEUCitizen 17y ago
    Re: "if China currently emits 4.5 X US per capita..." US per capita emissions is way higher than China's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...
    - netcan 17y ago
      Sorry. backwards
  - zzkt 17y ago
    Your ratio is approximately back-to-front. In 2007, the per-capita emissions for the US were 19.1 Metric tons to China's 4.6 Metric tons. http://www.iea.org/co2highlights http://www.iea.org/co2highlights
jbooth 17y ago
Per capita aside, they've already passed us in emissions-per-GDP. Just saying.
- w00pla 17y ago
  This is referred to as Carbon Intensity. The problem is that China is less developed than the USA and therefore has a higher carbon intensity. But the government promised to lower it by 40 percent by 2020.
- shawndrost 17y ago
  Source, details, explanation? (Genuinely curious.)
  - zzkt 17y ago
    You might want to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_G...
- lutorm 17y ago
  The emissions-per-GDP is probably closely related to technological development and energy efficiency. (At least it seems that way looking at the wikipedia list posted, the top countries are all 3rd world nations while for example the UAE is near the bottom.) So, I don't think they've passed the US, I think they've never been below.
DaniFong 17y ago
Kudos for bringing this up. Saul Griffith also weighs in quite reasonably on this issue: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/01/energy-literacy-4-ho.html http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/01/energy-literacy-4-ho.ht...

netcan 17y ago

The only deal anyone is really talking about is reduction in emissions based on 1990 (or perhaps some other date) levels. Rich countries make faster, deeper cuts and subsidize cuts in poor countries. Pretty much any variations are within that framework. I think there is also a perceived unfairness or indignation surrounding the issues. Depending on how you present things, it's always possible to present you country as getting screwed. There are always those whos agenda (which might even be legit) it serves to tell people they are being screwed. In every country in the world there are powerful people going around with that message. Rich Countries: * You are expected to make emitting carbon more expensive here then it is in other countries. That means that steel mills, factories & the like will shut down & reopened in China. Jobs will be shipped overseas(embellishment) No emissions are prevented since the factory gets reopened in India/China anyway. * This is a plan to tax US/EU suppliers a& transfer this money to China/India. Poor Countries: * You are expected to pay for the problems created by those countries with over 100 years of industrialized history. * Going by 1990 levels means dividing a world environmental resource. Since we were polluting 1/5 as much as US/EU in 1990, we get a smaller slice in the future. (related) This deal means that whoever polluted in the past is entitled to polluted in the future. *There is a known quantity (whatever it takes to get from 380 to 450 ppm) of carbon we can emmit globally. Divide that by 6 billion. Each one of these arguments is true in a way.

pyre 17y ago
HN wraps blocks that are prefixed with 2+ spaces in <pre><code> tags so, you'll probably want to word-wrap things yourself.

lutorm 17y ago

I never saw what actual per-capita emissions were on the table. Did they really want the developing nations to stay at a lower value indefinitely?

netcan 17y ago
Yes. That is pretty much the only kind of deal that gets talked about. The discussion is always about cutting or freezing. Sometimes it's about slowing growth, then freezing then cutting. The "inequality" of the deal will allow developing countries to get a little closer to developed country per capita emissions, but overall proportions are supposed to remain prety much fixed. So, if China currently emits 4.5 X US per capita, that may become 3 X at some point. It will never be 1=1. The reason for this is pragmatic. Demanding the developed countries cut till they reach China levels while China continues to grow emissions will take too long. {edit} I forgot to mention the other non pragmatic approach that some see as fair. Developing countries should be allowed to continue emitting carbon until their historical effect on atmospheric carbon equals that of the west. This solution locks in catastrophe at some point. (I fee like I need to qualify these sentences with "If the assumptions about climate change are close to correct")
- NonEUCitizen 17y ago
  Re: "if China currently emits 4.5 X US per capita..." US per capita emissions is way higher than China's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...
  - netcan 17y ago
    Sorry. backwards
- zzkt 17y ago
  Your ratio is approximately back-to-front. In 2007, the per-capita emissions for the US were 19.1 Metric tons to China's 4.6 Metric tons. http://www.iea.org/co2highlights http://www.iea.org/co2highlights

jbooth 17y ago

Per capita aside, they've already passed us in emissions-per-GDP. Just saying.

w00pla 17y ago
This is referred to as Carbon Intensity. The problem is that China is less developed than the USA and therefore has a higher carbon intensity. But the government promised to lower it by 40 percent by 2020.
shawndrost 17y ago
Source, details, explanation? (Genuinely curious.)
- zzkt 17y ago
  You might want to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_G...
lutorm 17y ago
The emissions-per-GDP is probably closely related to technological development and energy efficiency. (At least it seems that way looking at the wikipedia list posted, the top countries are all 3rd world nations while for example the UAE is near the bottom.) So, I don't think they've passed the US, I think they've never been below.

DaniFong 17y ago

Kudos for bringing this up. Saul Griffith also weighs in quite reasonably on this issue: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/01/energy-literacy-4-ho.html http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/01/energy-literacy-4-ho.ht...