Climate Change and Democracy

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Slaves are capital.

And slavery didn't end, not even in the good ol' US of A.

http://www.gourmet.com/foodpolitics/2009/03/politics-of-the-plate-tomato-slaves-follow-up
http://polizeros.com/2011/06/21/tomatoland-human-slavery-in-the-tomato-fields-of-florida/

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Slaves are capital.

True, but an inefficient method of production. So one that capitalism eventually discarded.

Originally posted by normbenign
True, but an inefficient method of production. So one that capitalism eventually discarded.

Not everywhere, even today.

Originally posted by normbenign
True, but an inefficient method of production. So one that capitalism eventually discarded.

Capitalists discarded slavery at the point of a gun. Slave plantations were immensely profitable.

Originally posted by JS357
Some suggest Australia going first, with limited carbon reduction targets that would be increased as others join in.

The South African government is considering levying a Carbon tax from as early as next year.

Industry is arguing (predictably!) that this will severely hurt our growth and competitiveness. Even if it DID reduce our Carbon footprint, since we are less than 2% of the world's C output, the global effect would be negligible.

We would also LOVE to have the Ozzies levy their own coal mining tax first, so that we can pick up a share of their export market! 😀

To change the subject just slightly, the folly of national action to solve global problems is clearly shown in Germany promising to dismantle all their nuclear power stations within 5 years. This is presumably because of safety concerns, and to placate their own greenies.

Off course, they would be totally safe against any accident in neighbouring France, which is 70+% dependent on nuclear! 🙄

Question: at what point should the UN intervene when there are identified and universally agreed (two huge qualifiers!) global problems?

Originally posted by CalJust
The South African government is considering levying a Carbon tax from as early as next year.

Industry is arguing (predictably!) that this will severely hurt our growth and competitiveness. Even if it DID reduce our Carbon footprint, since we are less than 2% of the world's C output, the global effect would be negligible.

We would also LOVE to have the ...[text shortened]... ervene when there are identified and universally agreed (two huge qualifiers!) global problems?

Here's an idea that is getting some attention:

The paper this abstract is from seems to be unavailable online:

"We propose a global refunding scheme as a new international approach to addressing climate change. A global refunding system allows each country to set its carbon emission tax, while aggregate tax revenues are partially refunded to member countries in proportion to the relative emissions reduction they achieve within a period. Nationally determined environmental policies and global refunding create increasing incentives to reduce emissions and may achieve efficiency and equity objectives of global climate policy. "

Gersbach, Hans, The Global Refunding System and Climate Change (January 2007). CER-ETH Working Paper No. 07/62. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=954889

I think the funds collected could be partly used for relevant research, perhaps bestowing grants to research agencies in countries that achieve their GHG reduction goals. At least this is implied at: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/10/13/climate-change-and-game-theory/