Re: Copenhagen Conference
rosskolnikov
location: Far end of the Group W bench
listening to: The Tony Rice Unit
registered: 2005.05.24
posts: 1822
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
The article's author, Wang Jin, asks. 'The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries.'-------------Irregardless of how one feels about Global Warming, this statment by Mr. Jin is idiocy. Economic improvement in the developing world has long been a goal of capitalists in the West. Bigger markets there improve, diversify, and expand the size of the world market and offer growth opportunities where things now grow more slowly in the West. The argument gets interesting when developing nations cite US per-person CO2 output as a reason to not impose any standards on themselves. The US developed earlier and now has an older infrastructure. Any attempt to get its per capita emissions down will take longer than will efforts to build "greener" from the ground up in China and India (both of whom an afford to do so). Having said that, the US had better get serious about conservation efforts. Again, regardless of Global Warming theory, one thing that isn't disputed is that as these other large countries grow, resource competition will increase. In this area, the US economy is very vulnerable. We've already seen how a moderate reduction in fuel demand (from the recession in 2009) collapsed oil prices. A national fuel conservation policy, with encouragement and some sensible vehicle regulation from the government, is a good idea. A Copenhagen agreement, without comprehensive and inclusive participation of China, India, and Brasil, is not.
–--
.:RS:.
.:RS:.
R
rosskolnikov
(view)
The article's author, Wang Jin, asks. 'The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries.'-------------Irregardless of how one feels about Global Warming, this statment by Mr. Jin is idiocy. Economic improvement in the developing world has long been a goal of capitalists in the West. Bigger markets there improve, diversify, and expand the size of the world market and offer growth opportunities where things now grow more slowly in the West. The argument gets interesting when developing nations cite US per-person CO2 output as a reason to not impose any standards on themselves. The US developed earlier and now has an older infrastructure. Any attempt to get its per capita emissions down will take longer than will efforts to build "greener" from the ground up in China and India (both of whom an afford to do so). Having said that, the US had better get serious about conservation efforts. Again, regardless of Global Warming theory, one thing that isn't disputed is that as these other large countries grow, resource competition will increase. In this area, the US economy is very vulnerable. We've already seen how a moderate reduction in fuel demand (from the recession in 2009) collapsed oil prices. A national fuel conservation policy, with encouragement and some sensible vehicle regulation from the government, is a good idea. A Copenhagen agreement, without comprehensive and inclusive participation of China, India, and Brasil, is not.
–--
.:RS:.
.:RS:.
