> Let's rather start with the notion that developed nations are wealthy, > have the capacity to do good and the wish to do so, if they think it's > going to make a big difference.
I understand where you are coming from, but that argument won't fly, at least not here in the U.S. Even if our Senate wanted to do good internationally, they still have to convince the conservative populace and there are still deep running isolationist tendencies here that push back against sending actual money to help other countries instead of soldiers backed by money to "help" other countries. Also, I think your four points are interesting, but probably not correct as Tom Adams pointed out, and I would still contend that number two is probably less significant than you think and impossible to measure. -Nick On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Tom Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > My point is really simple, but you seem to be completely missing it. > > On Dec 30, 3:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > The relative date of an emission (past, present, or future) has > > > nothing to do with it being beneficial or not. Perhaps beneficial > > > emissions should not be charged against the emitting nation's account > > > regardless of when it occurred. > > > > Carbon debt is an argument used by developing nations (including > > China) and a number of NGO's to press the case for transfer payments > > from developed nations to developing nations to pay for their > > emissions reductions and as reparations for supposed damage caused to > > them. > > > > I argue that: > > > > 1. This poisons the debate > > 2. It is unjust, because the industrial revolution and the resulting > > development of positive technologies such as PV could not have > > happened without carbon emissions > > Yeah, but industry today and in the future can also develop positive > technogies. What's so magic about past emissions vs future emissions? > > > 3. It is also unjust, because there was neither an intention to cause > > harm to other countries nor an awareness that this was likely > > Nobody intends to cause harm by emitting CO2, regardless of when they > do it. This applies both to past and future emissions. How could > ignorance of the consequences possibly be a defense? > > > 4. It is unjust that present generations should pay reparations for > > the sins of their ancestors > > Happens all the time. If a person who you are suppose to inherit from > have debts when they die, you have to pay the debts from their estate > and you get what is left of the estate. > > > > > Let's rather start with the notion that developed nations are wealthy, > > have the capacity to do good and the wish to do so, if they think it's > > going to make a big difference. > > -- > 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 > -- 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
