reply to post by 46ACE
Can I start my post by pointing out the obvious.
The worlds resources and "wealth" have already been redistributed by the first world, for the first world, at the expense of many third world and
emerging countries and economies.
Maybe the article should read: "Maybe its time to share things better now that we have screwed up the environment".
As always though, politicians and the corporations, and various military complexes will try to ensure that the very big pieces of the pie they have
carved for themselves either gets bigger or at least stays the same. So trying to establish the kind of agreements that the article refers to will be
The article points out that emerging economies and third world economies can only grow by burning coal, oil and gas.
Our economies use enormous amounts of oil, coal and gas. In fact we are reliant on it.
But, here is the rub.
We burn far more than our share. The article points this out when Edenhofer states:
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated
the atmosphere of the world community.
Edenhofer is right to hang some responsibility on the developed world.
He goes on to say this:
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal
and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental
And he is right.
The policy above is economic redistribution because OUR economies are founded in Fossil Fuel consumption. It is this habit that has Environmental
But in order to try to combat these effects, policy will of course change economies and their relationship to fossil fuels, especially as the WEST has
the burden of being the most prolific emitter. The WEST cannot now turn to the third world or emerging economies and say, "you cannot develop a better
quality of life from fossil fuels, like we have".
I think this sums it up.
It is even more complicated. In the 1980s, our local environmental problems were luxury problems for the developing countries. If you already
fed and own a car, you can get concerned about acid rain. For China, the problem was how to get 600 million Chinese people in the middle class.
Whether there was a coal power plant or whether the labour standards in the coal mines were low was second priority - as it was here in the 19th
It is easy for us to get caught up in this problem as being purely an environmental one.
But in reality, climate change is caused by our economies, our culture and our way of life. Which is dependent on fossil fuel consumption.
So policy relating to that will not be environmental per se, but one that effects Fossil Fuel consumption which has been the very foundation of our
development and our wealth.
Which ironically, third world and developing nations aspire too!
Developing countries have realized that causes of climate change lie in the north and the consequences in the south. And in developed countries,
we have realized that for a climate protection target of two degrees neither purely technical solutions nor life style change will be sufficient. The
people here in Europe have the grotesque idea that shopping in the bio food store or electric cars will solve the problem. This is arrogant because
the ecological footprint of our lifestyle has increased in the last 30 years, despite the eco-movement.
Once again, this man is on the money.
On the whole, this article is about establishing global emission rates with an eye on development policy for third world and emerging countries.
Will it work?
Not until we have passed a tipping point, IMHO.
This is not about the redistribution of wealth, IMHO.
This is about the redistribution of fossil fuel use in order to reduce emissions.
The catch is, wealth, lifestyles, economies are all linked to fossil fuels.
I will say one thing though, this quote concerns me.
The financial crisis was an emergency operation - in the face of danger we behave more cooperatively. Such a thing will not happen in climate
policy, because it will always remain questionable whether a specific event like a flood is a climate phenomenon. But there is always the risk that
individual rationality leads to collective stupidity. Therefore, one cannot solve the climate problem alone, but it has to be linked to other
problems. There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.
I know this is speculation, but when people start talking about penalties I always worry. We must remember that these penalties, that Edenhofer
speculates, are in relation to problems that involve every nation on earth.
So, who would enforce these penalties, and how?
Edenhofer is right, the argument is no longer about the environment, it has now moved on to how we will stop effecting the environment, and who will
be effected the most, and the least.
Cool link OP.
S and F.
edit on 27/11/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)