In other words, can they restrict you to third world emission levels?
Can a new structure based on the notion of ‘equity’ replace the Kyoto pact?
Lisa Friedman, E&E reporter
ClimateWire: Monday, January 9, 2012U.S. diplomats returned from last month’s global climate summit in Durban, South Africa, crowing that they had cracked the armor shielding China, India and other emerging nations from accepting binding emission cuts.
But now a serious challenge awaits them: preparing for an entirely new climate change regime.
Creating a different system — one that puts all countries on an even legal playing field while still remaining sensitive to different levels of wealth and historic emissions — promises to be a politically fraught and divisive task. Not only must negotiators decide how much more global warming responsibility the United States will have than China — they might also have to determine how to weigh mitigation obligations among countries like Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Mexico or South Korea.
At the core of this new debate, analysts say, lies the concept of equity. It is the policy that took center stage in Durban, yet its inner workings still remain murky. (ClimateWire)
It’s not often that JunkScience gets things wrong. Perhaps the first time in 12 years, if memory serves. If the US and Europe were required to emit as much CO2 as developing nations, we would have a wide latitude to increase our use of coal, etc.
You see, by burning dung, charcoal, etc., the developing world is the #1 CO2 emitter. See:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
Sorry Eric, you omit creative IPCC accounting, primitive fuel emissions don’t count, only evil developed (read: Western) world one’s do.
How is “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” different from “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”?
One of the first things I learned about controlling people is that the number of entities that can be directly controlled varies inversely with their diversity and with the complexity of the assigned tasks. A director leading a group of research scientists with different specialties can only succeed with a small group that operates more as a confederacy than as a dictatorship. To directly control hundreds or thousands requires military-style discipline and regimentation to the highest degree for even the simplest tasks such as walking.
Hut – Two – Three – Four.
The concept applies to peoples as well as to people. The only way to control them all is to reduce them all to an identical state of servility.
Not gonna happen!