The Daily Cow

Here is an excerpt from a superb article by Paul Krugman, highlighting the hypocrisy and misinformation of the critics:

What you hear from conservative opponents of a climate-change policy, however, is that any attempt to limit emissions would be economically devastating. The Heritage Foundation, for one, responded to Budget Office estimates on Waxman-Markey with a broadside titled, “C.B.O. Grossly Underestimates Costs of Cap and Trade.” The real effects, the foundation said, would be ruinous for families and job creation.

This reaction — this extreme pessimism about the economy’s ability to live with cap and trade — is very much at odds with typical conservative rhetoric. After all, modern conservatives express a deep, almost mystical confidence in the effectiveness of market incentives — Ronald Reagan liked to talk about the “magic of the marketplace.” They believe that the capitalist system can deal with all kinds of limitations, that technology, say, can easily overcome any constraints on growth posed by limited reserves of oil or other natural resources. And yet now they submit that this same private sector is utterly incapable of coping with a limit on overall emissions, even though such a cap would, from the private sector’s point of view, operate very much like a limited supply of a resource, like land. Why don’t they believe that the dynamism of capitalism will spur it to find ways to make do in a world of reduced carbon emissions? Why do they think the marketplace loses its magic as soon as market incentives are invoked in favor of conservation?

Clearly, conservatives abandon all faith in the ability of markets to cope with climate-change policy because they don’t want government intervention. Their stated pessimism about the cost of climate policy is essentially a political ploy rather than a reasoned economic judgment. The giveaway is the strong tendency of conservative opponents of cap and trade to argue in bad faith. That Heritage Foundation broadside accuses the Congressional Budget Office of making elementary logical errors, but if you actually read the office’s report, it’s clear that the foundation is willfully misreading it. Conservative politicians have been even more shameless. The National Republican Congressional Committee, for example, issued multiple press releases specifically citing a study from M.I.T. as the basis for a claim that cap and trade would cost $3,100 per household, despite repeated attempts by the study’s authors to get out the word that the actual number was only about a quarter as much.

Mark Lynas, A so-called journalist for The Guardian claims that China wrecked the Copenhagen deal. To see why, let's take a look at the emissions per capita:

It becomes abundantly obvious that citizens of China haven't taken advantage of their share of the Earth's resources nearly as much as most other countries, yet the US insists on capping the entire developing world at that level. What must happen is that (1) all countries must agree to a global emissions cut of 20% by 2020 and 15% for each additional decade, and divide that proportionately with the world's population; (2) an open and international research organization to coordinate on policy prescription, technical innovation and civil education; and (3) agreement on concrete measurement devices to maintain records of progress--changes in average yearly temperatures, level of rainfall, forest acreage, and of course, emissions numbers.

Lynas further demonstrates his inhibited vision of the world. He continues, "I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world." What he ultimately meant was that his absolute confusion prevented him from seeing the issue from the other 4/5th of the world's population.

Yes, environmentalists in the west, oblivious to the desire of people in developing nations to exercise the same rights to development as those in the developed nations, would have been celebrating; but certainly not in every corner of the world.

He claims to have been at the climate summit. We need someone more humanistic and rational to represent the developed world. After all, this planet belongs to no one--hence, no one is entitled to a larger proportion of its resources than anyone else, certainly not the developed nations that triggered the problem in the first place.

It frustrates me to know how biased, selfish and close-minded people can be. This is our world to share and save; let's protect it together.

In a NYT article, the author tragically blames the most vulnerable and innocent stakeholders (the developing nations) for the failure of the G8 climate talks by attributing the failure their refusal "to commit to specific goals for slashing heat-trapping gases by 2050, undercutting the drive to build a global consensus."

In reality, "emerging powers refused to agree because they wanted industrial countries to commit to midterm goals in the next decade and to follow through on promises of financial and technological help for poorer nations." That demand makes sense, considering developing economies want access to the same development opportunities available to developed nations. Not only was the bulk of the emissions produced by the developed countries in the past two centuries, but even now, developing countries produce a fraction (a tenth to a fifth) of the emissions of developed countries per person. They don't want to limit themselves to that, especially to simply pay for the environmental debt incurred by the industrialized nations.

In short, given what the developed nations left them with, developing nations simply don't believe that the former will achieve their commitments. They want to see real, documented progress along the way.

Not only that, but developing countries have numerous other tasks that are of higher priority--alleviating widespread hunger, increasing agricultural production, reducing unemployment--all major tasks that require resources that they can barely afford, if at all. They need the assistance of developed nations to help pull them to the level field in terms of climate-control technology. The issue is a worldwide concern and resolving it is a worldwide responsibility; there is no reason to selfishly keep to yourself. Greenhouse gases in Beijing is the same as in Los Angeles. The atmosphere is shared.

I am disappointed that the media would portray the world's attempt to balance its urgent tasks regarding poverty alleviation with an equally urgent--but shared--task of limiting environmental impact as a streamlined process that is impeded only by the developing world's obstinance. No--it's the lack of understanding from the developed world of the fact that (a) the problem is global and shared, and (b) people in developing countries want and deserve the same opportunities as anyone else.

What sounds more reasonable to me is a 20% reduction in per-capita emissions by developed nations by 2020, and an 80% reduction in per-capita emissions by 2050, with the developing nations to follow at no greater than the developed nations' emissions.

Don't blame the failure of the talks on the vulnerable developing nations; blame it on the lack of empathy by developed nations.

In many states, electronics companies are required to pay for recycling functional devices. But in many developing countries around the world, people cannot afford televisions at normal market price but would love to have some way of staying connected. Why don't we ship the televisions to those people, and they can pay for just the cost of shipping? Why waste functional hardware when we can make 99.1 million new television owners happier and more connected?