Differences of Opinion at Climate Talks in Warsaw
Here are a few words on the climate talks in Warsaw, based on yesterday’s New York Times article – just a few – since I have nothing constructive to report, nor, in my heart of hearts, do I think any level of accord is even remotely possible. As always, the talks bog down between rich and poor nations on the question of who should pay for relief for climate-related disaster.
I happen to know some people at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Boston who are very much a part of this affair. Their director of policy Alden Meyer writes, “And here we are going into the last days of Warsaw, and the small island states and the less-developed countries are seeing signs that they’re not going to come out of this with what was agreed last year.”
Predictably, the talks broke down badly. But while the negotiations did end in discord, a Western diplomat said, “Everyone agreed to leave together with expectations that talks would resume later.” And, in fact, they did pick up later. Todd Stern, the U.S. climate delegate, was optimistic: “I don’t see this negotiation blowing up,” Mr. Stern said. “I think we will find a resolution.”
As my daughter likes to say when I say or do something inexplicable, “Really??”
This, btw, is one of the 50 reasons I won’t be invited to be a U.S. climate delegate. While I sincerely sympathize with the people trying to make this turn out well, I couldn’t find words to express confidence in the outcome if someone had a gun to my head.
Craig,
What do you think would be fair, and fair for whom?
I really believe the idea of industrialized nations setting targets to scale back their emissions while the undeveloped nations just try to move forward is a sensible path.
One thing I would like to see is a “climate bank” where developing nations could issue 10, 20, 30, and 40 – year bonds for the dual purpose of improving efficiency and reducing the per unit emissions of their electricity and transportation systems.. Then regular environmentalists – like you or I – could buy the 10 year bonds. Wealthy environmentalists could buy the 20 year bonds, and businesses and countries that wish to promote “green” development could buy the longer-term bonds. It would simply be a vote of confidence that developing the economy’s infrastructure in a more sustainable way should lead to more sustainable growth, and you believe that these investments will mature. The industrializing country would be making that same vote of confidence in sustainable growth – they would choose to borrow more money to build lower impact infrastructure in the belief that they would then be better positioned many years down the road.
It would be market based, and voluntary… Something like that might break the stalemate, but it’s hasn’t been put on the table by any faction.
Wow, that’s a very thoughtful solution. The main issue to me is that there is very little pressure being put on anyone reduce emissions. As long as coal is cheaper than the various flavors of renewables and efficiency, the only force that is acting to put a spear through coal is public pressure, and it’s unclear that this is going to win the day. It sure would be good to have a tax on emissions that forces all entities involved to pay the comprehensive costs of what they’re consuming.
Craig,
You can’t levy a tax on another sovereign country unless that country volunteers to grant you the authority to do so, and poor countries will not sign onto a treaty that penalizes them in their quest to try to get a small piece of the lifestyle we enjoy.
It’s going to have to be voluntary, and we’re going to have to provide the capital for anything other than the cheapest option.
We could drop out of the WTO and implement an import tariff based on the calculated carbon footprint of all imports, and simultaneously issue a carbon tax on all American businesses… but that would probably not be supported by more than ~10% of the populace.
(I would not be among that 10% unless this was done via a treaty in which at least 80% of the industrialized nations agree to set their carbon tax and import carbon tariff equally, and the value of that tax/tariff is based on either the median or the mean projected cost of global warming; or the projected cost of global warming to that individual state (so a country like the Netherlands might have 3 times the tax of a nation like the U.S.)… but no nation that signs onto the treaty could arbitrarily use the carbon tax as a trade war mechanism. Obviously, it is VERY unlikely that any talks would yield a tax option that I would support).
Well I suppose that’s what I’m suggesting — a treaty in which each industrialized country agrees to impose its own taxes, and channels the proceeds into the development of renewables and efficiency. As you point out, this is much harder on the developing world, but I believe that all the R&D stimulated by the above will drive down the cost of renewables, smart grid, HVDC, V2G, storage, etc. I know you think I’m a dreamer. 🙂