I agree with the author on these 4 arguments. But I feel that his arguments were very superficial and just scratched the surface.

The devil is in the details. If developing countries accept emission cutoff then how should that be decided? per-capita, same as developed countries during their growth period, proportional to gdp? It is clear that some of these are fair and some are not.

A point that can be made against the topic will be. Whether developing countries accept the emission cap or not, the economics of carbon fuel will make an upper limit on the emissions. The only exception is coal and for that we don’t need emission caps but cheap technology transfer from developed world to developing world. So one might argue that economics of carbon fuel will render them unusable in many sectors.

As Harshad himself puts it, the whole structure of environment debate is based on statistical correlations alone. So to develop \ debate arguments based on that opens of possibilities of skulduggery, lobbying and all that.

Then Harshad’s and pro-sign-the-protocol-people’s entire argument is based on -if we do not agree to developed nations’ (entirely unjust) demand then they will not reduce theirs. What kind of maturity is this on their part?

What kind of technology and money will we get to cap our emissions? If those technologies exist why do the developed nations anyways not put it to use themselves? Most developed nations are running huge budget deficits and will do so for long time to come. How dependable would their assistance be?

As far as we showing this maturity is concerned, let us show this on our own. Let us focus on energy efficiency through better designs of homes, buildings, and other products.

Electric grid eats up 30-to 40% of energy before energy reaches points of consumptions. Even 10 % energy savings at POC will have multiplier effect and you will actually help people monetarily. Poor need that. Do developed nations have commercially tried technologies for the kind of homes and gadgets that we use? I wonder. Their economies are based on consumption led growth and thinking based on cheap hydrocarbons.

Another aspect, which will need technology and engineering, is distribute generation of power based on community needs and using multiple \ flexible energy sources. Do developed countries have technology for this? I bet not, since their models are based on big and centralized solutions (being more ‘efficient’)

Let us promote public transportation (at the cost of private transport too) to save on non-grid energy. And far heavens’ sake let us end this farce of electric vehicles in the name of global warming. Every time you charge your battery you use grid energy that one and half times that goes in charging. And you are not counting energy loss from electrical to chemical (storage) to electrical (for driving motor).

I hear that nuclear power gets a status of clean (no carbon!) energy. Let us also put an end to this kind of creativity.

But above solutions are not sexy and they will need antagonizing powerful lobbies. Do we have that kind of sagacity? If we do not, how will we show that by signing protocols?

And what happened to ‘population control’ -why has this fallen off the agenda? -if human activities are causing global warming?

The gulf between developed world’s standard of living (consumption) and that of the poor world is too huge -same kind of talents and work yield widely different monetary and consumption rewards.

There will be huge and painful adjustments and very painful at that for the rich of the world to do. I do not think, signing a protocol can in any way trigger or cause that.

Hemant

I’m proposing a direct relationship of emissions to jobs and every country will have to reduce emission levels to allow some room for growth. So what I propose is a factory can produce more but with the same amount of gases released.
Europe has borne the brunt by being the forerunner in implementing better emission norms for cars, better recycling standards and safety norms. I feel we need to share this responsibility too.
I definitely disagree to the moral guidance proposed above ….. its a choice a few people cannot decide for the nation …. unless you are in CHINA.

Good point about the planet’s environment though but unfortunately we have divided the planet into countries and now no country will give up their own benefit for the planet. Some of the disadvantages of having boundries!