Tom Adams wrote:
...
> If China drafted a treaty, it would call for per capita limits and the
> financial responsibilities would be allocated based on every molecule
> of GHG pumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the
> Industrial Revolution.
...
Why not draft it for them here? You all are experts enough to do the
numbers for that extreme political case, I think.
It might actually reveal some non-perverse incentives.
For example at present, China continues to emit arge volumes of ozone-
depleting refrigerants and collect phaseout payments while building
new factories to emit more HCFCs, while still allowed, gaming the
system (and the USA and all the others are trying to speed up the
Montreal Protocol timetable).
So if China's treaty draft basis is "every molecule of GHG" then
there's an immediate argument for them to _now_ agree to cut off
production of ozone-depleting chemistry. Suddenly, it's in their own
interest as the basis for a climate treaty to do that.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
