One area in which I do think the debate over greenhouse gases has gone wrong is the extent to which many commenters, particularly on the left, focus on allocating carbon permits as a distributional justice question. To wit, they are willing to exempt India and China from global trading regimes, because these places are very poor.
Or, even more weirdly, they want to not cap emissions in developing countries, and then buy reduction credits from those countries for reducing the emissions they would have made if the developed countries had not stepped in with a suitcase full of money. This seems like a boon to the emerging business of building highly polluting industrial installations that can be shut down, but not actually likely to produce much in the way of real reductions.
The purpose of a global greenhouse-gas reduction scheme should, it seems to me, be to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses. It should not be to simply transfer the emissions of those gasses to other, more "deserving" countries. If Bangladesh floods, the Bangladeshis will not much care whether the carbon dioxide that caused it was released by worthy shoe factories in China, or gluttonous American SUVs.
To the extent that capping emissions results in global wealth differentials that are unjust, I think there is a better way to redistribute that wealth. For the purposes of this discussion, I will call it "money".
Having a global emissions scheme which does not do anything about Chinese or Indian emissions seems only slightly better than doing nothing at all; China is on track to surpass US emissions by the end of this decade, and India's emissions, while still low, have taken some large leaps forward in recent years. To the extent that we are aiming to reduce the burning of easily transshippable fossil fuels--oil and natural gas, and regionally, coal--an emissions cap that doesn't cover the developing world will result in no net reduction in greenhouse gasses. Consumers in the developed world will get some small boost from demand reduction in the industrialized world; and a further boost as we effectively outsource our carbon intensive industries to the developing world, stimulating their economies.
But such a transfer is extremely inefficient. It benefits, not the neediest, but the least needy among poor nations--the ones that have already industrialized somewhat. It also imposes rather large administrative costs. Moreover, because fuel efficiency often imposes high capital costs, even though it offers lower operating costs, poor countries tend to invest in machinery which is relatively less efficient than that in the developed world. That means that a unit of GDP produced in China is relatively more carbon intensive than a similar unit of GDP produced in a developed country, so the world overall will be poorer if we redistribute carbon rather than money.
To be sure, there are some aspects of improved material consumption which require carbon to be transferred to the developing world, such as electricity and transportation. But this can be readily achieved by capping emissions and then transferring enough money to the developing world to buy gasoline and natural gas and so forth. The bonus is, if there are things that the developing world wants to buy even more than carbon, they can purchase those things instead, rather than having us constrain their purchasing choices.
All this is purely theoretical, of course, since I don't see any serious global emissions regime emerging any time soon. But as long as we're discussing ideals, I don't see why we want to leave China and India out of it.
The purpose of a global greenhouse-gas reduction scheme should, it seems to me, be to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Wrong! It's For the Children.
China reportedly exceeded the US as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases this past June. China is on a path to double its carbon emissions over the next decade. If it does so, carbon emissions would continue to rise, even if the US somehow managed to reduce its carbon emissions to zero over the same period.
If anthropogenic carbon emissions are the sole cause, or even the major cause, of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations; then, ceasing anthropogenic carbon emissions is the only, or the major, step which would halt the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
You are absolutely correct that if AGW is a global problem, it is amenable only to a global solution.
"Wrong! It's For the Children."
Close. The purpose is to feel that something is being done about the problem, without giving up any aspect of an energy-intensive lifestyle. Exporting the CO2 emissions to China eliminates the feeling of responsibility.
There's a reason why silliness like this gets play, and it's the same reason bulls*** carbon offsets substitute for actual sacrifices, and why rich spokespeople drive Priuses to their private jets.
David Bowie said it best. "Oooh bop/Do-do-do-do-do-do-do/Fa-fa-fa-fa-fashion.
Even if I were to buy in to the immediacy of AGW and the looming global warming crisis, I would be reluctant to take a major hit to my lifestyle to reduce my carbon footprint if China and India continue producing greenhouse gasses and we still end up with the same environmental crisis...
EI
Am international cap&trade system would be great for everybody. Excluding China and India from the market does not make sense and is ideologically misunderstood by the left - as Megan explains.
China has become a major producer of green technologies and in case China and India are not included in the cap&trade - other countries would rightly increase import duties on China's solar technologies. A loss greater for the West and China than any cap&trade system would represent?
btw - yes, developing countries are less fuel efficient compared to industrial nations. but they also have more incentives for adopting green technologies. Just like many developing countries can leapfrog the copper telecom networks via wireless.. they can avoid expensive transportation and last mile networks (the grid) by local energy production like solar and hydro. Small hydro and solar is successfully used in many regions and there IS evidence for rapid deployment. It is cheaper than building nuclear plants, coal plants or paying for high oil prices - let alone building and maintaining grids..
We had such a good discussion regarding the future of broadband recently. Why do I feel that we have less trust in other areas? Leapfrogging.. the thing is that more people know about "cars" and "computers" than they know about "energy". even industry players are oftentimes lost in their space (oil is very different than nuclear).
If the government (right or left) wants to express stewardship - it can be very influential - as it has been with the nuclear in the 50s (unfortunately NOT with solar in the 60s - otherwise we would not be having this discussion right now). The same with information technologies etc.
Big investments and smart spending can have big results - but the danger must be perceived as real and NOT concrete. The "uncertainty" about global warming is just an excuse! There was no "certainty" about the cold war or about Saddam having a bomb.. "Certainty" is never part of the equation. Perceived threat is...
And then there is behavioral economics.. I have a noble-price winning theory to present: Why we get more upset about "murder" or "terror" than a "car/plane crash" is because one is intentional and the other is accidental. Our emotional psychology triggers us to respond more aggressively(aka spending more $) when the threat is intentional rather than accidental - albeit the accidental dangers (in $) might be more likely or costly.
It does not matter.. the danger IS real. Oil IS running out (aka getting more expensive). A handful of entrepreneurs are often enough to introduce a paradigm shift.. and there are already thousands. The mainframe era might have been helped by cold war government spending.. but the client server revolution and the Internet took care of themselves. So did wireless. So will solar.
Some lobbies will fight.. Oil companies oftentimes have the same business model as cinemas. They make a loss on oil transaction (tickets) but cash in on cigarettes, mars bars, coffee, etc. that is why the oil companies jumped on Toyota for introducing so many 100% electric cars so early. The FIRST Prius sold in California (together with a small SUV) was only electric and could be recharged anywhere (no need to stop at BP, Evron, or what have you). Californians loved it (150 miles range and good acceleration and even more silent than the hybrid) but the oil companies hated it and... hybrid it is!
Either way - this is like the music industry closing napster! doesn't mean that music will not be distributed via the internet.