Mr. Bhusan Tuladhar, Nepal says (in an email sent to me):

Dear Tek:

Interesting argument. It was bound to come sometime. One could look at the argument in different perspective: what would happen if the result was positive and the fight was to take the credit, not shy away from it.

For example, today, a day after the London Olympics, the world media is talking about "the greatest British athlete" Mo Farah and his twin gold medals in 5,000 meters & 10,000 meters. One could argue: which country should get the credit for Mo Farah's achievement - Somalia, where he was born; UK, his adopted country or USA, where he trained for the last year. Somalia and USA certainly had a part to play in the success story and they can share some of the credits and feel the pride, but officially, the gold medals go to UK, because he is officially a British citizen.

Similarly, in the case of Chinese goods, the raw materials could have come from Africa, the energy used to make the product may have come from the Middle East, the company which made the product may be American, the labour used to make the product may be Nepali, and the market where the product is sold may be in Europe, but officially, the product is still Chinese, because it has "Made in China" written on it. This means that the product as well as all the by-products (including carbon emissions) that is produced while making the product is officially Chinese.

The Chinese however, do not need to take the responsibility of the emission generated due to the operation of the product (for example a car exported to the US) because the the product has been sold and the new owner of the product has to take responsibility and credit of the product and its implications. Chinese need not take any responsibility of the emission produced by a car just because it is made in China. Similarly, if a Chinese car wins the a Formula One title, the Chinese cannot claim that the title just because the car that won it happens to be made it China. The Chinese people, however, can and should take pride in their car.

The point is that we may share the credits and blame among all partners but ultimately, it is the owner of the product or process that takes full credit for its outputs.

Regards

Bhushan

(I am not an economist or policy expert, but here is my opinion)

The logic is sound, to a point. The cost of the GHGs released for export ought to be reflected in the price of goods. Either the Chinese charge extra and spend the money to mitigate.improve factories etc, or the west adds a tariff to goods from GHG spewing factories and uses the money to develop better alternatives.

Either way, the cost of Chinese goods should go up - the only question is whether China gets the money to spend on improving their factories, or the rest of the world uses the money to provide alternative sources of the things made in china currently.

Mr. Bhusan Tuladhar, Nepal says (in an email sent to me):

Dear Tek:

Interesting argument. It was bound to come sometime. One could look at the argument in different perspective: what would happen if the result was positive and the fight was to take the credit, not shy away from it.

For example, today, a day after the London Olympics, the world media is talking about "the greatest British athlete" Mo Farah and his twin gold medals in 5,000 meters & 10,000 meters. One could argue: which country should get the credit for Mo Farah's achievement - Somalia, where he was born; UK, his adopted country or USA, where he trained for the last year. Somalia and USA certainly had a part to play in the success story and they can share some of the credits and feel the pride, but officially, the gold medals go to UK, because he is officially a British citizen.

Similarly, in the case of Chinese goods, the raw materials could have come from Africa, the energy used to make the product may have come from the Middle East, the company which made the product may be American, the labour used to make the product may be Nepali, and the market where the product is sold may be in Europe, but officially, the product is still Chinese, because it has "Made in China" written on it. This means that the product as well as all the by-products (including carbon emissions) that is produced while making the product is officially Chinese.

The Chinese however, do not need to take the responsibility of the emission generated due to the operation of the product (for example a car exported to the US) because the the product has been sold and the new owner of the product has to take responsibility and credit of the product and its implications. Chinese need not take any responsibility of the emission produced by a car just because it is made in China. Similarly, if a Chinese car wins the a Formula One title, the Chinese cannot claim that the title just because the car that won it happens to be made it China. The Chinese people, however, can and should take pride in their car.

The point is that we may share the credits and blame among all partners but ultimately, it is the owner of the product or process that takes full credit for its outputs.

Regards

Bhushan

Ngamindra Dahal, Nepal says (in an email sent to me):

Dear Tek ji and Bhusan ji,

This is interesting turning point in climate debate. Now, it is not

difficult to understand why China, US or India keep inventing new

points for arguments. The essence lies on whether the major actors

realize their collective responsibility or not towards saving the

Earth before it is too late. As China does not want to come on board

unless US agree on bearing its historical responsibility, there is

unlikely to breakthrough the current deadlock despite of changing

arguments. Therefore the new perspective of Chinese arguments could be

for chasing US and its allies to counter their pressure.

Personally I am hopeful on outcomes of COP 18 as it is taking place

immediate after new leadership in both super power, who might be

interested to give a positive message to the world.

Cheers

Ngamindra

Dear Bhusan and Ngamindra and friends:

I express my views in the same line and think China should bear the responsibility for pumping additional carbon to the atmosphere for whatever purpose (to meet domestic requirement or to make profit to meet foreign demands by setting up clone/manufacturing wings of almost all major companies in the world - from Apple to Samsung, and kitchenwares to aeroplane). I am not sure whether the phrase 'historical responsibility' will continue to be part of negotiations as with the changing world dynamics, emission patterns, nature of economic activities, and discovery of new items added to the list of emission sources (such as black carbon, methane from agricultural sector to name a few). However the only thing I can say is the climate negotiations are now almost out of control as long as the scientific aspect is concerned. Overwhelmingly driven by political and economic interest of all major economies (of course we small nations also have our interest but poor us we don't have much bargaining power), the climate debate is likely to be a 'Pandora' or say 'digital illusion' that will keep changing faster than the process of understanding we are developing. many of issues coming next day are unimaginable and when they are presented, we hardly comprehend. As a result, future discussions are likely to be less scientific but more political, economic and partly philosophical and I wouldn't be surprised seeing if the moral ground gradually starts disappearing from the scene.

Interesting would be to see how theory if syllogism will giggle CC negotiators and run the negotiations towards bottomless pit. With basic knowledge of analogy, I can confidently say that every logic presented in this course can be seen as valid and invalid at the same time, whether it is about the net country emission or per capita emission or lately emerged theory of end user logic.

God bless Doha, god bless UNFCCC. Hope god, this time, will not be as silent as in Kyoto matter!

Best,

Tek

Dear Joseph,

I fully agree with your statement that the solution lies somewhere in the net price of the product and who is attributed to that. If the China is seen as the emitter, that money should come back to China and they are ought to be responsible for developing compensation for this loss. This may work in the long run as the climate negotiations become more complex, more dynamic and interactive.

However I think the long term solution (to mitigate the emission) solely lies on how to keep market price of good and services too high so only who rally needs uses it and compensates for the associated environmental loss.

Best,

Tek

I agree with Mahat "The essence lies on whether the major actors realize their collective responsibility or not towards saving the Earth before it is too late. It is the responsibility of all of us to act to this climate changes

Is not your suggested action by the Government of China just another example of our individual and national inabilities to live within sustainable resources. Why would any new COP 18 agreement allow anyone to produce products that provide economic advantage BECAUSE they do not cover the true costs of resources, in this case ENERGY?

Yes, let everyone pay for their carbon footprint, including the additional costs of the products China hopes to put on the market.

Can we not determine a reasonable and accurate cost of “living green” and strive to achieve that and begin to produce a sustainable World?

Please keep after these tough political issues.

Larry

Why must the price go up? Why should profits be maintained that are originally excessive?

Second thought, at the bottom of the heap -- some products should not be made because they are excessive polluters in production, and after, in use. For example weapons and military equipment are hardly considered, while cars are the subject. What level of pollution does it take to make a tank, and what level of pollution does it make to be in use, and what level when it is damaged and needs be destroyed? Perhaps they should not be made? (Oh, Oh, not that!)

(Of course one has to avoid the human loss - after all -- we should not introduce complications. )

The mitigation of pollution by carbon payments, or additional costs to the producer or consumer, all are bogus plans to keep on manufacturing often deadly polluting commodities. Ecologically we know that a nuclear plant that implodes in Japan effects many more nations around the Pacific rim.

rgd

Climate change negotiations have already lost track since the "Kyoto Protokol"... None of the COPs that followed put back those negotiations "on track". Therefore, asking whether COP 18 in Doha, or focusing on the Chinese change in attitude, will NOT get those negotiations back to their proper track.

What is needed is actually a spirit (unfortunately lost) going back to 1992 ... The Rio Summit... this is when serious & sincere agreements were put forward. The unfortunate evolution which followed (turning the "content of agreements" to financial institutions &, therefore, depleting the "actualization of agreements")... this is where we stand now...

My fears looking towards e COP 18 are increasing... while the Polar ice caps rate of melting has never been exceeded !!!!!!!!!!!!

Mohd. Khawlie

One small thought, in the above discussion, "saving the Earth."

In the explications, theories and proofs of James Lovelock the earth "the Earth" will survive . In the understanding of Lynn Margulis (Evolution Symbiogensis etc) before prokyarote life forms were barely evident or none at all. for a much as 1-2 billion years no life on the Earth. It was surviving. No? And after that , life in some form simple, or complex was battered by all sorts of extremes ice ages, droughts, metiors volcanic eruptions. The Earth survived and the bacteria monera, protoctista began again on its way. The improved way to discuss the notions around climate- extremes, glacial melts etc.. is to note that "Human Habitat will be effected. The Earth will not be saved or destroyed by Western and now Easter civilizations and capitalist industrial production pollution and wars. It behooves the arguments to be less journalistically simple minded and avoid the crisis, and the ubiquitous exaggeration - Save the Planet!!!!

Save the Earth!!!!!! For one it sounds impossible, for another it is scientifically not accurate. It does work however in the commercial media to frighten and then drive people back to their video games.

At present the two main emitters of CO2 are China and the USA. It is up to the USA to cut their emissions to a per capita level of that in China, if they want China to make sacrifices.