Latest comments posted about “A challenge to our moral imagination” on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/413--A-challenge-to-our-moral-imagination- http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/413--A-challenge-to-our-moral-imagination- In the next 10 years, rapid comsumption of resources and fast discharge of pollutants will accompany the rapid development of China. China's efforts on energy saving and pollutants reduction seem to be inefficient. So everything we have done proves to be in vain? Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:04:30 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/413#comment-4514 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/413#comment-4514 I think this is the key part of the Gore / Hilton interview "Well, every international agreement since the end of World War Two has had the same basic architecture. The wealthier industrial countries have taken upon themselves the first obligations because they can. They’re best positioned to lead and to begin making the changes. And then the poorer nations, with less wherewithal and less of an ability to make the changes, are obligated to join in after the wealthier nations have begun the task. That’s been true of trade; it’s been true of every agreement. The Kyoto agreement is no exception and, yes, I support that architecture. It’s a practical necessity. The task is surely to agree a global basis for stabilising greenhouse gas emissions at a safe level and the science is completely clear that this is as close to 400ppmv as we can make it. If we are currently at 380 ppmv it means we have, in effect, ‘5%’ of atmosphere left. We thus need a basis for sharing this allocation across all countries. Kyoto may have been a wake-up call and thus an important first step but it is clearly not working, not only because America will not sign up because it does not include China but because it does not seek to alter the distribution of ‘atmospheric shares’. Developed nations are required to reduce emissions in proportion to their current consumption. The point that is the current consumption pattern is not equitable. It is a ‘gdp’ allocation. Up until now there has been no assumption that things have to be equitable. Power politics, in fact, is all about ensuring that they are not. The point about climate change however and the point we seem to be missing is that it changes the power politics. Might is no longer right, the future needs to be negotiated. Every nation has to agree to reduce emissions. If one nation stands aloof, then we all risk run away global warming, the nightmare scenario where rising temperatures make the planet uninhabitable – in other words mutually assured destruction – a cold war phrase chosen for the potency of its acronym. When one begins to look for a basis for the whole world signing up to agree to a basis for sharing out the 5% or so of atmosphere that remains, there can only be one answer: it has to be done on the basis of population. Rather than being an anti-capitalist, anti-market solution as some have chosen to see it, it is a profoundly capitalist system since massive carbon trading will surely follow. It is a framework solution. We set new rules and continue much as before within them. This position is called Contraction and Convergence and details are available at www.gci.org.uk Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:15:58 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/413#comment-346 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/413#comment-346 what an interesting article and new site in general. Keep up the good work! CHM Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:57:21 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/413#comment-260 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/413#comment-260