Comments on: Are China’s Carbon Emissions China’s? http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/29/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:57:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/29/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions/#comment-6500 Earl Killian Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:05:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/29/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions/#comment-6500 This sounds a bit like the old discussion of whether GDP or GNP was the more meaningful measure (actually they are both bogus, but that is another topic altogether). While I certainly understand the point that the U.S. is shifting emissions to China, ultimately I see national borders as still relevant because that is where regulatory authority ends. The one exception to that is the U.S. should, once it finally puts a price on its own greenhouse gas emissions, put a price on imports from nations that do not similarly use their regulatory authority to reflect the cost of externalities in the products they produce. Here is a semi-relevant quote from George Monbiot's Manifesto for a New World Order. It serves as a reminder of how difficult it will be to regulate the animals: "The state, like a tree, is essentially immobile. While it can expand its access to resources by extending its roots into the soil on which other trees are growing, it must adapt to the circumstances in which it finds itself. The corporations, like omnivorous animals, are mobile. They move from tree to tree, taking shelter in the branches, preying upon both the trees which protect them, and the other members of the ecosystem, seeking always the most easily obtained resources. The burden of predation has now become so great that most of the trees in the wood appear to be suffering what foresters call ‘die-back’." This sounds a bit like the old discussion of whether GDP or GNP was the more meaningful measure (actually they are both bogus, but that is another topic altogether). While I certainly understand the point that the U.S. is shifting emissions to China, ultimately I see national borders as still relevant because that is where regulatory authority ends. The one exception to that is the U.S. should, once it finally puts a price on its own greenhouse gas emissions, put a price on imports from nations that do not similarly use their regulatory authority to reflect the cost of externalities in the products they produce.

Here is a semi-relevant quote from George Monbiot’s Manifesto for a New World Order. It serves as a reminder of how difficult it will be to regulate the animals:

“The state, like a tree, is essentially immobile. While it can expand its access to resources by extending its roots into the soil on which other trees are growing, it must adapt to the circumstances in which it finds itself. The corporations, like omnivorous animals, are mobile. They move from tree to tree, taking shelter in the branches, preying upon both the trees which protect them, and the other members of the ecosystem, seeking always the most easily obtained resources. The burden of predation has now become so great that most of the trees in the wood appear to be suffering what foresters call ‘die-back’.”

]]> By: john http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/29/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions/#comment-6503 john Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:18:59 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/29/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions/#comment-6503 The US is, in fact, essentially outsourcing it's carbon emissions, just as many corporations who ballyhoo their emissions reductions here in the states have been doing for decades. Less here, but more there. We do the same with oil dependency. When economists say our economy is less dependent upon oil, they forget that we import a great deal of "embedded" oil in the products we get from China et al. and the oil costs are also embedded in those products. In essence, we have outsourced our oil dependency to developing nations, but we still pay. It is all fed by our US consumptive life-style, and the amzing thing is that since folks have studied these things, there's been no correlation between consumptive levels and happiness, once the most basic needs of food and shelter have been met. Earl, I agree that states/nations are nevertheless the point of focus for controling GHG emissions, and the notion of charging a standard price for GHG for imports is elegant, and eminently workable. But it is also true that we can only move forward on solutions together. The US is, in fact, essentially outsourcing it’s carbon emissions, just as many corporations who ballyhoo their emissions reductions here in the states have been doing for decades. Less here, but more there.

We do the same with oil dependency. When economists say our economy is less dependent upon oil, they forget that we import a great deal of “embedded” oil in the products we get from China et al. and the oil costs are also embedded in those products. In essence, we have outsourced our oil dependency to developing nations, but we still pay.

It is all fed by our US consumptive life-style, and the amzing thing is that since folks have studied these things, there’s been no correlation between consumptive levels and happiness, once the most basic needs of food and shelter have been met.

Earl, I agree that states/nations are nevertheless the point of focus for controling GHG emissions, and the notion of charging a standard price for GHG for imports is elegant, and eminently workable.

But it is also true that we can only move forward on solutions together.

]]>