Many people rag on the Kyoto treaty. Let's stipulate that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem (leave debates over the scientific evidence for another thread) and ask:If we want to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at twice its pre-industrial level (560 parts per million, or about 50% higher than today), what would be the best and fairest way to do it?Of course, Kyoto would not even come close to achieving this goal, but I think this is a more interesting goal than Kyoto's goal of only slowing warming down by a few years.
Again, let's not let this drift off topic into a debate over the science (we can have that argument in another thread if y'all want to), because I think there is an interesting discussion to be had if we start with some well-defined goal and ask the best way to achieve it.
- Should nations be regulated according to total national output (US, China, and Luxembourg can emit the same number of tons)?
- Should nations be regulated according to per-capita output?
- Should consideration be made for a nation's previous emissions and/or wealth or developmental status?
- Should emissions levels be specified (Nation x can emit y tons per year) or should there be some sort of open-market for emissions (e.g., tradable permits)?
- Should limits be set, or should taxes be applied to greenhouse gas emissions and let the markets decide the optimal levels and distribution of emissions?
Results 1 to 4 of 4
Thread: If not Kyoto, what?
Check out the hottest mountain bike products from these brands!
See All Interbike Coverage - Click Here »