Friday, April 04, 2008
Bargaining power and greenhouse gas negotiations
Of the various possible responses to anthropogenic climate change, the favorite of the activists -- the massive transformation of the global economy to reduce the output of carbon dioxide by 80% before the end of the life I hope to live -- will be excrutiatingly difficult to effect because of its disparate impact on industries, economies, voters, and countries. This little story illustrates the problem:
Delegates working on the negotiating agenda for a sweeping global warming pact clashed Friday over Japan's push for early discussions of industry-specific limits on carbon dioxide emissions, delegates and environmentalists said.
Now, I have no clue in the world whether there is some general advantage in industry-specific limits; greenhouse gas regulation is going to prove to be by far the most complex regulatory challenge the world has ever confronted, and I am quite sure intelligent discussion of the details requires technical knowledge well beyond my ken. (My instincts are that industry-specific targets are a bad idea, because they assume the continued existence of particular industries, which is always problematic.) I do know this: Japan would not argue for industry-specific targets and the United States would not support them if they did not believe industry-specific targets are in their national interest. Whether Japan and the United States want the regulation structured this way for geopolitical advantage or to satisfy domestic constituencies is almost beside the point, because both countries have enormous leverage in this negotiation. Why? Because they are such large producers of greenhouse gases that the world needs them in any global settlement. Yes, the biggest "polluters" (if that is what they are) are in the strongest position because they are the biggest polluters. They will therefore be far more likely to get a deal that is good for their constituents than countries that are not big polluters.
I respectfully submit that we need solutions to AGW that allocate the negotiating leverage differently than international regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
5 Comments:
By 
davod, at
Fri Apr 04, 08:20:00 AM:
The EU is already looking at exempting heavy industry in the EU from any cap and trade. Why, the cost of the cap and trade or the buy trees programs would make the industries uncompetitive.
As an aside: The UK wants to charge aircraft passengers $44.00 per pasenger to offset CO2 and the Australiana are looking at a charge of $25.00 per passenger.
By randian, at
Fri Apr 04, 09:30:00 AM:
This would all be well and good, if CO2 were a pollutant and AGW weren't a spectacular fraud.
By 
, at
Fri Apr 04, 11:19:00 AM:
Three wildly unrelated things:
(1) I'm not sure what other methods of diminishing emissions other then international regulation would be effective. A global problem requires a global solution. However, you do haved a point that the balance of power in such a situation is such that any regulation like would be ineffective.
(2) Trees are a poor carbon sink. Grasslands to a much better job, on a per acre basis, of fixing carbon out of the atmosphere then trees.
(3) Nearly all (certainly all I know of) plants respond to higher CO2 levels with more aggresive growth. The current make up puts CO2 at about 340 PPM. Plants go bonkers for CO2 at 1500 PPM. That's why commercial grows, and pot growers, spend money on elaborate CO2 injection systems. The average growth rate jumps by about 30%. Some plants much more. It depends on when they open to breathe. Some plants are always open and benefit the most. Desert type plants open at night and benefit less. So perhaps nature already has a solution to our problem.
By , at
Fri Apr 04, 01:57:00 PM:
The activists and negotiators pushing for emission controls will always meet resistance from those who will be required to take action to reduce emissions.
If they want actual results with minimal resistance from those taking the initial actions they should target the production of fossil fuels instead.
The easiest starting point would be to work toward coal production limits in the nations exporting coal.
An agreement between major coal exporters to limit production would decrease the amount of coal available resulting in lower CO2 emissions.
Bring a sufficient number of the exporting countries into the agreement and the price of coal would climb, as the price of oil has risen as a result of OPEC's production controls.
The coal producers making the cuts would benefit from the plan thus be unlikely to resist taking the required action.
Of course I don't expect the environmental activists to promote this path to reducing CO2 emission, it doesn't fit with their agenda.
Alan
By , at
Sun Apr 06, 12:06:00 PM:
Al Gore can stop global warming by keeping his big fat piehole closed and cutting off the HOT AIR
