bhwti gw - Global Warming Revised: May 2, 2008 By Jagdish...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–16. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
Background image of page 15

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 16
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Global Warming Revised: May 2, 2008 By Jagdish Bhagyyati University Professor, Economies & Law, Columbia University For Meeting in Florence, Agrii 2008 I make here a few pertinent points that bear on the negotiation of Kyoto II which, so far, seems to re~enact the conceptual confusions that marred Kyoto 1. Additional comments are directed at other issues raised currently in the debate on appropriate policy response to the Globai Warming Crisis. A: Aggrogriate Design of Kyoto H 1. Bringing India and China into a new Kyoto: The idea that they should be in the new Kyoto for PRESENT (current) emissions makes sense but ONLY as part of a package that simultaneousiy introduces liability for EASE damage by the rich countries. The problem with the old Kyoto agreement was that it confused 2 different issues: past damage and current liability, or what I cali the Stock and the Flow w of the Global warming issue. The iiabiiity for current flowslemissions by India and China was waived because they did not damage the atmGSphere in the past (the stock aspect)! 2. So, with the case for exemption for India and China presented as if it was simply a question of ietting off two big C02 emitters simply because they were underdeveloped --- Le. there was an implicit or explicit a-ppeai to the" progressive taxation principle which does not have today in the US the moral appeai that it carried eariier --- and had not emitted C02 in the past the way that rich countries had done, the US Senate would not ratify Kyoto: the “vote” in the Senate was 99 to 1 against! Even the form-er Vice President Al Gore and President Bili Ci-inton withdrew from battiing for Kyoto in the US Congress; it is doubtful that either of them really had thought the matter through or was willing to expend poiitieal capital on the issue. . How can then Kyoto II be devised so as to resoive this problem in an analytically correct, and politically equitable, fashion? 1' propose in my Financial 'fimes (August 16, 2006) article, appended, that to bring India and China or: board on current emissions, we need to introduce the Superfund idea, from US practice itself, under which the rich countries would pay for East damage. . What is however going on politically, and cannot be accepted by india and. China, is that they are being asked to accept the flows liability for current emissions WITHOUT the creation of a Superfund for gas; (stock) damages. . in short, not surprisingly, one may note cynicaily, India and China are being asked to take obligations While the complementary obligation on BS, EU and other rich countries is- being ignored. I am not surprised that they refuse. We must walk on 2 legs or not at all. [Former Fresideat Clinton remarked recently, on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press TV Show in September ., J‘YKW'V‘IIV'Vqu-Ww‘ww u owe, c we . m . . ymwwmy»we’ve-333m3,137,: P. aroma“ 2007, that India had to he brought into Global Environmental 0-biigatioos, adding that a 4—year old child had fallen into the river in Delhi and had died because of toxic pollutants in the river. Alas, this celebrated “policy won-k” cannot distinguish between Global Warming and domestic poll'otion.] I should also add that, as for the calculation of the current liability, it should not also be equalized at the margin, but most reflect the shadow cost of ALL emissions currently (rhinos C02 absorption th rough rain forests, for example). The rich countries have again introduced the selfwserving US principle of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), under which those States which already pollute more are to accept (relative to what a tax on ALL emissions would imply) a lower obligation just because they pollute more. While their quantitative obligations under Kyoto (which even most of the EU did not fulfill) looked larger, in fact they reflected a truncated and “self-serving” bastardization of the full-bodied market principie of charging each State for ALL emissions. So, even on the Flow dimension, the rich countries must move from what is _d__e fags; a i’SD approach to a fall tax on ALL emissions for all. B: Some Problems with Cap & Trade and a Carbon Tax 1. Cap & Trade is simply the quantitative counterpart of the price instrument, the carbon tax. All that different caps for different sectors in a country do is to segment the markets & therefore allowing trade of caps/permits among them reduces the '\N‘V’«"\'o"v‘\"\"a<‘m'wmw‘ku—w-vwww or. n. . .. .3. .. .. . _. . economic cost of achieving an o-ve-raii sum of the different caps. Again, if the caps are to be traded within segmented markets only m e.g. only energy-prodaeihg plants can trade among one another their caps m the reduction in economic cost will be correspondingly less. . The key question really is: what is the overall C02 emissions cap to he set at? This is the same question as what the Carbon Tax rate should be. Evidently, after the recent Reports on the urgency of the Global Warming problem, we have shifted to thinking of a higher carbon tax than we would have otherwise. The fine Stern report’s calculations underline this also. [I imagine, however, that the main reason why pubiic perceptions have shifted towards doing something drastic on Giobal Warming is the inciting of the glaciers and the simultaneous release of the classic French film on I’engoins, with the Al Gore documentary providing beiatedly an added push. Similariy, the discovery of the hole in the Ozone iayer served to change public perception on the need to eliminate CF Cs in the Montreal Protocol. [As a proponent of Free Trade against ceaseless attacks by protectionists and popeiists, I an: continualiy arguing at an inteiiectuai level, taking care to write in an accessihie fashion. But I need and seek the equivalent of Penguins and meiting glaciers to win the war! Suggestions are welcome] . But there is a diffieuit Measurement Problem here. Before a Carbon Tax can be effectively appiied, we must know what the C02 emissions are for different activities. In some cases like emissions from fossiiwfuei energy piants, the discharges are easily observed and measured. But there are counticss activities where we just do not know their “carbon imprint”. [This is the insuperable problem faced by the proposal that every human being shooid be given a- carbon quota beyond which a carbon tax wonid kick in: how would one know the carbon imprint from the hundreds of activities of a human being such as walking on carpets, floors, cycling, riding buses, driving ears, eating etc.? . The reselt of the inability to measure carbon emissions from many activities is that we often go by Whatever some activist NGOS demand in regard to specific activities, often without any evidence. Thus, some NGOs wanted cut flowers not imported from the poor countries of Africa into London because they argued that trade creates C02 emissions, and therefore we should go “local”. The British DFXD (Department for international Development), no antiwenvironmeutalist agency, commissioned a study which fOond that cut flowers imported form the muchwcloser Rotterdam created in fact larger C02 emissions per bench delivered to London because the C02 emissions from growing them in Greenhouses were. more substantial! Yet, you have NGOS crawling all over aircraft and demonstrating against ioternationai trade. . Leave that problem aside & let us say we concentrate only on some big, observable & measurable emissions of C02. Bu-t'even then, we run into the problem that the carbon tax must be equalized net of what is already being done: e.g. eoootries with big petrol taxes would have lower carbon taxes. Who is going to «Army-mwVsuiuiyzy:..=wyuv;wr hymn} m -.» " .-Act“,“WWVW. tell the US that therefore their liability on a carbon tax would have to be higher than that of many foreign countries? . in turn, this raises serious questions about the EU desire currentiy to apply a tariff on countries that do not match the proposed EU carbon tax. This is the French proposal of a few years ago (going back to an original discussion of my own many years eariier). The exact WTO—legality of this proposal is discussed fidiy in the Bh'agwatin'avroidis pap-er East year in the World Trade Review (2907, V01. 6(2)), attached herewith. But. Peter Mandelson has it right: the proposai could. degenerate into chaos as the US (whose Congress is aiso considering similar iegisiatiou ironically) turns to simiiar actions and the rest of the worid retaiiates, drawing on all kinds of environmental (e.g. that the US and the EU have not paid for a Superfund) and “social- values” (e.g. the US has not ratified most of the core ILO conventions) arguments to restrain the EU and US trade, in turn. [In fact, the original Dolphin-Tana GATT Panel decision over 15 years ago, on which I had been consuited as Economic Poiicy Adviser (1991-1993) to the GATT Director General Arthur Dunkel, had found in favour of Mexico and against the US principally because we couid foresee the chaos that would break out in this fashion, a lesson that recent WTO Appcilate Body rulings have aawiseiy ignored] C: Exhortation & Self-Restraint w~m~mwu~m<-m~wmmww luv»- ,- . W. .. .. . -_. . 3. Given the impracticality of a carbon tax that gets all carbon imprint into the tax net, it makes sense for its to exercise selfw restraint where the effect on C02 emissions is demonstrable and plausible. Thus, if I turn off the lights or computers when I am not using them, that clearly reduces energy use and therefore C02 emissions (even though a purist might say that turning off lights more will Wear out bulbs more and therefore create emissions from the manufacture of bulbs, a secondeorder effect I presume). [See the attached cartoon on how you could use skates instead of driving to reduce C02 emissions. The Nobel Laureate William Vickrey, my colleague at Columbia, was a Quaker and a Pacifist, and in fact used to skate his way from the rail station to Columbia daiiyij- Indeed, as the impressive presentation by Mr. Narayana Murthy of lnfosys today shows dramatically, huge savings of energy have been undertaken by numerous such actions in his firm in Bangalore. Indeed, there are tremendous possibilities from such actions by individuals and, equally importantly, by firms. As the “green ethos” spreads and firms also increasingly realize that good citizenship pays off, going green is seen increasingly as a way of avoiding being in the red. Of course, this does not mean that incentives, as produced by a carbon tax or a suitably restrictive overall cap, to reinforce the im petns of voluntary action are unnecessary. But then you have also absurd suggestions, typically from the celebrities. Thus, Sheryl Crow, the wonderful singer, suggested . H‘xr‘c Ww‘i‘w‘a'v‘wnw um recently that, instead of using 2 pieces of toilet paper, we should use one! My reaction was that my daughter’s rottweiler --- let me assure the Chairman Prime Minister Tony Blair that, contrary to Princess Diana’s views, rottweilers can be as charming as she was m uses none; maybe we should emulate her! Perhaps singers, including Bonn, should sing and collect moneys & should leave development and the environment to others better equipped to think through the problem, just as Warren Buffet, who obviously knew how to make enormous amounts of money, decided to give it for altruistic spending to Bill Gates who knows how to spend it effectively. One other point. In the US, there is a certain sense, expressed best by Governor Schwarzenegger, that if there is pain involved in curtailing C02 emissions, it will not fly. But we can use technology to continue living the same lifestyle, e.g. he cites his Hummer & argues how he can continue using it because now the new fuel technology will allow his: to equip it with an almost zeromernissions engine. [See his brilliant and witty speech on California’s environmental initiatives at the Council on Foreign Relations last year; it is available from the Councii.] But, is he sure that if you use more batteries, that their manufacture does not create its own C02 emissions and environmental waste problems? Would it not he better to forego his SUV (what I call a Socially Unciesirahle Vehicle) and just use less fuel? And since higher speeds cause more emissions, how about preventing cars (except for police, fire department and ambulances) from being put on road with engines that can go beyond 75 mikes per hour? Potting caps on emissions possibilities on cars does not change your lifestyle; but putting caps on speed possibilities on cars does. There ties the problem! So, one must pause and ask: how far can one go with this technoiogicai, no-paiu approach? The same question arises in regard to the so—ealied “offsets”. Mr. Gore has been accused of a lifestyte that results in substantial! emissions. But he claims that his carbon imprint is zero because he buys offsets, getting others to do the C02 saving. My reaction to this is: this argument of Mr. Gore is as if I was to knife Mr. Gore to death and was then to tell the world that my Wife was giving birth to a baby and therefore my “population imprint” was zeroi If Mr. Gore wants to reduce C02 emissions woridwide, iet him subsidize others who do so, but that should be in addition to his reducing his own C02 emissions, not a substitute for reducing his own emissions. In fact, while the US politicians now talk ceaselessly about Global Warming, one can oniy doubt if there is seriousness about the need for urgent action when the going gets tough. Thus, it is astonishing that, as part of the Presidentiai campaign, as gas prices have gone up at the pump, Hiliary Clinton and John McCain have promised to reduce the gas tax! How can such irresponsihiiity be tolerated by worid opinion even as the Clinton campaign, in particniar, taiks a good game on environmentalism? If there is indeed a huge crisis, no short-term, politically-expedient reversals like this can be tolerated. [it is to the credit of Barrack Obama that he has refused to endorse this proposal, even if it will lose him votes: this. is in keeping with his enormous courage and integrity shown in his solitary Willingness to condemn the daiiy rantings of the popniar Lou Dobbs of the CNN against immigration.] D: Broader Environmental Issues such as Shifting between Fuels I. The question of shifting among different fuel sources is even trickier, as we now know. The food crisis accentuated by the biofoels shows how we might save on C02 emissions, saving many lives in the future, while helping create a virtual famine that kiils many here and now. 2. 0n nuclear power, we have Greenpeace (and the Nobei Peace iaureate Jody Wiliiams who earned her Nobel for activism against landmines and has no expertise on the nuclear issue) dead opposed to its spread. Yet, many including its founder Patrick Moore have argued recently m see his Q&A interview with Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek , titled “A Renegade Aginst Greenpeace: Why he says they’re wrong to view nuclear energy as ‘evil’ ”, updated April 12, 2008 m that this is an unscientific position, and that Greenpeace is now being run by people who have no training in the sciences. 'i‘his has also been my experience at Davos and in other international fora where, increasingly, those who know a field are now surrounded on Panels by iii- informed not impassioned representatives of gigantic NGOs, i0 - i.» wvwvmwwwwwovert-WWW was". m .. .. ... ..._- ‘ .. . ., N e u u s A A A A A A A A A A A often founded in the rich countries and Whose competence lies in other fieids instead, but whose immense funds and PR skills get them public attention whereas the viewpoints of the smaller NGOS, typically t0 be foumi in the peer countries, get muscied eat). . We also now have to re-open the question (if the GM seeds. Again, many environmentai NGOS oppose their use on the ground that they are Frankenstein feed-s. But by denying them, we also forego the teehneiogy that promises a second Green Revolution. Are we te- substitute currentiym-nproven fears ef Frankenstein for the Grim Reaper that premises the near certainty of continuing poverty and food crises in the poor countries? 11 wmmwmmw-www Agpendix 0 Environmental Carmen - lntroductien to Jagdish Bhagwati and Petros C. Mavmidis, “ls action against US exports for failure t0 Sign Kyoto Protocol W'FO-Eegal?” World Trade Review, V6, Issue 2, July 2097. - Jagdish Bhagwwgi, “A global warming fund could succeed Where Kyoto failed” Financiai Times, August 16, 2006 ’qsn’t it enough to ju'st advocate environ‘ mentaiz’sm?” \"WVWM'KVLWE.1V;aTutu2VLara“;fiery-:47:":‘11‘1-1r‘x1vu1u-yy7 my“; if} was;swayAmgwmmw Wow Mada .Qeaiéwg9081i é: 2, 299—33 Framed in #35 Unfzéa' My:me Snipings Jewel'st fléagiwaff and Farm C flash/midis dcizimfil WMMMSSWGOE?! Is action against US exports for failure to sign Kyoto Protocol WTO-lega-l ? jAGDESI—I BHAGWJATE University Professor, Emnomivs and Law, Colmnbia University PE?‘R(}S C. MAVROIDlS Edna??? 3. Parker Frog‘ssmrof Law, (jéilumb'éa University 1. The issue Since the. jurisprudence on USu'Tuna was overturned by the Appellate Body’s USmShrz’mp decision in favour of the United States, lending iegitimacy to action again-st mixer nations because of their refusal so conform. to the production pm» cessas and methods {PPMs} unilaterally specified by a member of the WTO, there has been concern that this has opened the door so all kinds of puaétive msasures such as the use of trade action, including against the Uaited States itself for not having signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, in his 2004 book, In Defense of Globalization, in the context of an extended critique of the legitimézation of such uniiateral assertions of PPM rsqairements and the faultiines opened up by the US~SIWimp dacision {2304: 15 3—158), one of us (Bhagwati) avguedfl" The shrimpumrtie. éecision és a dangerous rulihg because of the possibilisy, which. bothered the aifi‘i’lOl‘S of the 3991 GATT report on :raée and {he environment, that it opens up a Pandora’s box. Consider {hair this finding appliss We woulci like :0 thank charé i-ioeiimzm, André Sapir, and an azionymous micron: for very helpful comments. Remaizaiog errors are of course our own. I Critiques of éemands for including unilaterally defined P?Ms as a ground for suspension of market access to @mdfias not using the regaimdl’PMs has long Ewen. discussed by one of us (Bhagwati; in different places, See, in particular, Jagéisii Bhagwati mad T. Srinivasao, "Frank: and {ho Eovimmient: Does Environmental EDiverS'ity Detmc: imm rim Case for Free E‘méefi. in jagclish Bimgwasi and Raiser: é-lmiec {his}, Fair ’f‘mde (Md Hamnmi-zaiiom Prenreqzfimfi fa? Free 'I‘mdaf, Cambridge, MA: MI?“ F‘rfiss, 996, Volume I ; ami Shagwmi, ‘Aftcrwoz’d: The Question of Lioicsge ’, American journal ofimtemariamf Law, 96H} {2382}: 136434. Bhagwati was also Economic £30332? Adviser in I99 {—93 to the Sirens: Gerisrszl of G331} Arthur Dankei, when the original l}oip§1in»~?uzia Paocl docision was taken, affecting the SAT? icgaiity of uriilatarally Specified PPMS :15 a Wij of restricting marker 299 m-mwwwonMW-W-uow-m w aw O'M'M'Vm m .. m. .. .. ..__.. . . . N N u i 4 4 ~wmyxvnwwanWant”yyyyrl‘mwy v,“ mum “m 300 jAGDiSH BHAGWATK arse 1>Etaoso MAVROIDIS fully to the United States, which has failed to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, wheteas almost ail other nations have. The United States is therefore prodocing traded products using PPMS that other nations can claim damage the environment. Not doubting that the US couid he targeted for trade action because of its failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the analysis then moved to the politics of such trade action:2 We won-id in effect he talking about a virtuai embargo, as most products use eaergy in their manufacture! The United States is protected only by its size and its ability as a hegemon to hrowbeai other nationrstates into not passing such iegisl‘atioo [or using executive to take the trade action]. But that leaves a gaping incoherence and cynicism in the world at the inherent asymmetry and injustice of a WTO fiispute Settlement Mechanism that implicitly, even if perhaps unw wittinglv, favors the powerfui. Since then, this idea — admittedly not deveioped with the sophisticated legal analysis that is clearly necessary and which we offer here — has been taken up by others. In particular, Joseph Stiglitz, oar coiieague at Columbia University, has now proceeded to ask for joint trade action against the United States by the EU and japan, among others.3 And the French Prime Minister, Dominique dc Villepin, never far behind in tweaking the American nose, has even foiiowed in Bhagwati’s footsteps and proposed such action by the European Union“ It would appear that Peter Mandeison, the EU Trade Commissioner, has dismissed the French ptoposai as a ‘ptohable breach of trade rules’ and, exactiy as Bhagwati had suggested, as ‘not good politics? Clearly, the matter needs sophisticated legal analysis, as also a realistic assess— ment of the politics, of a Kyoto~hased action against the Uaited States. In what follows, therefore, we first explore what kind of action the European Union could legally, that is, in conformity with its WTO obligations, undertake against the United States (Section 2), and then move to discuss the poiin dimension of an (eventual) US response {Section 3). in Section 2, consequently, we assume that the European Union has decided to move in this direction. In Section 3, on the other hand, we ask the question Whether the European Union should he contempiating such actions in the first piace: for, even if an action were legaily possible, which we 2 fihagwati, in Defense of Glohafizaiion, page 15?, 3 See hoth his latest hook, Making Glohm'éeaiirm Work, Norton, 2336, and the website of the Center for Glohal Development, a Washington DC think—tank, dated 29 September 3.896, where the idea is presented by Stigiitz. His rationale for the implementation of the Bhagwati idea is however based on legal confusions between two quite different arguments: the Shrimp—Turtle decision and the argument that the failure to ratify and implement Kyoto amounts to the US using ‘ hidden solisidies’. See the legal anaiysis in the text above. 4 75hr: iirench i.’time Minister’s ptoposai was made in mid—November 2686 and immediately drew atten— tion worldwide. 5 See the Hedoniin Times, E7 December 2006, titled ‘iiU Trade Chief to Reiect “ Green Tax” Plan”. x’Mwi'fiN'xfi'xfimx‘tN‘WflwaM‘ww'u'wu'uwwww.vu . W . . . . i"H‘x“iworn.”L'wavvwfewwku Hwwymf_w:;«u~<umv"“e7-‘u‘- QQAMEAL HMES WEENESDAY AUGUST RS 2306 iAQQ‘fSH KHAGWATI A global warming fund could succeed where Kyoto failed l Gore has keen busy rom- ing global warming to centre stage with terrifying warn» ' of disastos‘ Wfih his best— selling book, An Incomiem'm: Truth, anti the popular oomyanlon documen~ tel-y. Tony Blair,- tlw UK prime minis~ tor, has joined A even fed w the renewal focus on gloaal warming, charging Sir Nicholas Stem, the economist, with solving the problem. Alongside his one cessful initiative on Africa. this is to be his surefire international legacy as he ends his loot term in office. Gettmg global warming on the radar acroon is only half the game, however, flee other half has 1:0 be the design of policies to address 1% effectlvely. The :entroiaiece of world action has been the 3997 Kyoto l’rotoml to the Framo Work Convention on. Climate Change. 32:2, while it mbodied maximal obliga- ziom on {carbon dioxide emission reduc— 1i0ns 3316: has now been r‘atfifieé anti gpproved by more than 164:) commas, be US 21.213 not clone or}. So, the Kyoto :rroiocol is dead. in the water: you can» :9: stage Howie: without the l’n’nce. Ever; thoogh Bill Clinton, {hen proofi- ieifi, and Al Gore, than vicenpres'ident, ware Wholeheartefi oappoz'ters of the groin accord » Mr Clinton even sigaed .t m they could not get it ratified by me "senate that 2136 united against it by a role of 95% 1:3 19%. Whoa; Moment 3:323:31“: W. mash rejected Kyoiao, he was :héreforo momentng a corpse anti it, simoly to please amt} mvlronmemal consziments. Em lespite éhe presence of many who 313.3%: the alarm over glooal warming, ho unwillingness of the US Senate to on to Kyoto oanfiot be out down to J3 capficioumeos. Rather, it reflects a :erioas flaw in {he dosign of the photo» 331. When this is understood, the on? “me; of a better intemaiéonal assaolt it; tho global warming problem, which a mm more attractive owl likely to 2mg the US on board, become evééent, The fatal flaw in the Kyoto omtoooi is mat it left Imlla and China out of the emission~rodu.ction obligations. Both are major polluters; Endia still way behind out China closing in on the US. The US Senate coulé not buy into this exemption of India am Shim. First, the principle of “progressive Marion" that would leave the yoorer countries wick little obligation no longer has political salience in the US. Seooml, the image of these two giants long asleep and snoring has shifzed to that of giants astir and spewing out significant levels of (202 into the atmosphere, undermm‘ng the crecfihility of those who would exempt them from burden- sharing. So. why were India anti China loft of? like hook? The gamer lies, as often, in analyti; ea} coafusion and a political Ridge. While the 211118530115 of today are sub- stantial and growmg for lnfiia and China, the emissions of yesterday aro mainly by the rich countries. The accu- mulated fossil fool €102 for imam showa the damage attributable to India aim Shim: as less than 10 per cent whjlo the European Salon, Russia am: the US jointly amount for nearly "I0 per cent. india ma China argued successfally that because they were hardly respon‘ film.» {or the “stock” problem ~ past damage they olwuld be exempted from the “flow” obligation 7- the cor— rm; éamage - at loam for now. So, the stools; woolen: was aééwgsed by forigu log the solution to the flow problem. The political wig? left Kyoto unsalo abio. it will remain so unless it is revioed «1 reflect toe distillation between the stock and flow obligations 2136., therefore, the diocth between the- mtiom that xiié damage to the 13:35; and those $313: are joinizig their ranks with a voogmnco. How is om to do this? The stock problem can be aficlz‘essed £231 adogting tine very technique that the US has used at home: to dog} with past éamage to the environment. Con» Sofiaoi: Will the Amo’m’zr‘em {floatiflation €QMM§NT with torts actions, the US enacteti in $950 the Comgrehensive Enviromomai Response, Compensation 2:116: Llahllity Act, commoniy known as {he 8131162“— funé. Undo)“ it, a tax was Eevéeti on the Chemical and petroleam momma—5 and, among other actions, iiobility eszab- fished for people responsible for the release of hazardous Waste at closet: and abandoned hazartlous wasto sites. it ostabliohod a most iund' {which would also receive the myrtle-fits for past damage unsier the act) to gym—Erie for "cleanup" when no reasonable party could be idonéified. This 33313011119 for dealing with past E? is hard to imagine the US objecting to making nations pay for their total pollution. Such a tax is omiy a way of creating a missing mayke‘t damage makes some and can surely be applloci in the international context. The rich nations, which have been resoonséhie for the overwhelming bulk of tho mileage of 602 into the atmos— phere in the past, would have :0 agroe to mymmi of damages mm a global warming sum-flood. These payments could. be assessqu for a yerioo of no 1993 than 25 years. The ogfimtoci damages could reflect €128 opporé‘imiéj; cost of reducing the Cflg emissiom lay a corw spendng amount in £136 next 25 years. Since “f:lé33fl~flp” Snag not make some in the context of giobo} warming. theoe fondo wwld ingteacl ioe afloeatefi to researchng a vafiety of Eogugav‘i'ng ismhnologies, stash as Wind and gala? energy. and io Suhoéé-lsaing tho pm?- olmse of environm€=nl:«§riomfl§; toclmol ogies by the devologmg comm-flog. including indie: and China, 312931 subsir dies would rebound to the Mnefi-t of the rich countries paying into superfund. sineo their companies tp'plv sally produce theoo toolmologioa. So, i aside from the global mam":ng super fond being palatable to me rich coon trieg because it reflects {:8 pfincigpie E Hiroariy in domestit practico, businesxs sopport for it can be expected as well. ; 01': me. other band, the fiowa new} $0 be taxoct, just as; in the polluterpays principle. The existing obllgotlom are based bromin on the half-baked princl- pie of “prevenzion of signifiaant doteri— oration”. whammy {how who pollute». more do not have to pay more am: only the excess pollution gooerataeé by each country- is soughl to be rsedigmbutefl mom1 wuitahly. 1133mm}, efficiency” and fairness re‘ quire fiations to Eye taxed am their total €102 éisefiargo annually. China and India would then have liabilities m» {letting their act {film-harm‘s and the U burden woolé be :«zignificzmtly higher than that of almost all other nations; because it @011qung most. Again, funds collected could ho partiy adéeo to the global Slipflrfflnfi for intomotionai uses; the has? {soak} be 5mm on domestic i projects; for the same ym’gooos. It. is hard to magma the Us, the ideological. : all? of markets, objeéctiog to this; appll‘ {23mm of the maxket principle: making 5 oath nation pay {or éts total pollution. The tax: is only a way - selling tradoaole permi’os for C93: iféslsé.‘?‘éafg£‘fi of amazing 3 missing market. Thero will {yo {ilflleronceg 0%; ho much ought lo opens} {m y-rworzzmg global warmmg. loll; ms.» difficultlw: g 99%;} :33: the 53:29:?" Hm} {l4 Ego are: 3 mtoéious am: {3' rmnediod. It ' time to cowect a? T122 firmer, mivwsiég mféfiwr of eco fiflmfi‘f‘; 5mg" low {23 {Eozuméjz‘ri fizfimsfi and 5? ., . 172‘. $329, {iommf {m For. {52‘ng 565mm {1226 6:; like game}? of ffiszfi'vrzw of {Eiiyiafzfzizzzzégm {Sifforgf} ' ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 16

bhwti gw - Global Warming Revised: May 2, 2008 By Jagdish...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 16. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online