Key is going. Now who pays?

19 comments on “Key is going. Now who pays? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gitmo 1

   4 December 2009 at 9:29 am

   Look the solution is simple.

   Import two or three million refugees, put them in a large camp somewhere a good distance from my house and then recalculate our emissions per capita I’m sure it will make us look brilliant in relation to the curbing of CO2 emissions.
   • lprent 1.1

     4 December 2009 at 11:17 am

     What happens when they start raising their affluence levels and emitting closer to your level. Besides your maths is crap you’d keep needing more immigrants. Our emission levels are what – say 10 or 20x those of china on average.

     I suppose that you could be original and call it “the final solution” and act accordingly.
     • gitmo 1.1.1

       4 December 2009 at 12:12 pm

       “Our emission levels are what say 10 or 20x those of china on average.”

       Per capita maybe but that’s probably because they have numerous billions living in abject poverty,

       No one wants to admit the only solution to lowering CO2 emissions is probably a “humane” form of the final solution…… twice as many humans pottering about since we first walked on the moon tend to make a fair bit of mess and utilise a fair bit of energy/food etc.
       • lprent 1.1.1.1

         4 December 2009 at 2:16 pm

         Yep – so we start with the largest emitters? That reduces the emissions with the least cost in life. Opps they’re the ones with the nukes – US, Russia, Britian, France, probably Germany, etc…

         Ok so we start with the biggest emitters without nukes. Ummm Aussie and NZ seem like a good starting point, along with Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, ……. In fact trimming a lot of affluent countries with limited militarism.

         You really haven’t thought this through have you?
         • gitmo 1.1.1.1.1

           4 December 2009 at 2:21 pm

           Actually I’ve thought it through thoroughly which is why I can’t really figure out why everyone’s so keen for us to economically punch ourselves in the face when the largest emitters will be doing sweet FA and in the case of China, India, US, Russia probably bending the truth in relation to their figures.

           I tend to think global warming might be the best solution to the problem of all those pesky humans.
           • Neptune 1.1.1.1.1.1

             4 December 2009 at 2:32 pm

             “Actually I’ve thought it through thoroughly”

             ‘thorough thought’-impressive.

             I like a man who thinks outside the square-
             (outside the square) which would be classed as ‘thorough thought’ right?
       • side show bob 1.1.1.2

         4 December 2009 at 4:43 pm

         Iprent, I know how to fix those pesky emissions. Drop a small tactical nuke on Carbonhargen in about a weeks time. Problem gone.
         • lprent 1.1.1.2.1

           4 December 2009 at 4:48 pm

           ssb: Sounds like a standard CCD position.

           Don’t make the effort to understand the science (actually just too damn lazy as far as I can tell), rely on your infallible ‘instincts’ (ie self-interest), and destroy anything that challenges your world-view.

           Pretty moronic way of operating really…
2. Pat 2

   4 December 2009 at 9:42 am

   On the slim off-chance that there is a worldwide agreement and participation in a carbon trading scheme, what are the consequences of pulling out in the future?

   For example, if a couple of large countries give it the middle finger in 10 years time because they are slapped with a massive bill, what are the enforcement procedures from there? Trade sanctions? Military action?

   It seems to be a house of cards. A government faced with a large ETS bill or an angry hungry populace will reneg on their ETS obligations everytime.
   • Bright Red 2.1

     4 December 2009 at 9:50 am

     You could argue the same about the EU, the WTO, or any international agreement. Intnerational law is not law like domestic law is – rahter an a sovereign body enforcing the law on others, international law is made between sovereign bodies and works because having a system of international law is in the interests of countries.

     Countries keep to their international agreements because it is in their interests to have a functioning system of international law. Sure, pulling out of one agreement might benefit them one time but if everyone did it all the time they would lose a lot. On top of that, countries risk sanctions from other countries if they renege, like trade punishments. Simple politics, Pat.
     • corkscrew 2.1.1

       4 December 2009 at 10:06 am

       Unless they are the type of countries where all international agreements entered into are automatically part of their domestic law (eg Holland).
     • gitmo 2.1.2

       4 December 2009 at 10:07 am

       “Countries keep to their international agreements because it is in their interests to have a functioning system of international law.”

       Yes and I’m sure no ones going to lie about their CO2 emissions, how do they propose to measure them anyway…….. another QANGO populated by ex politicians and similar cronies perhaps.
       • Pat 2.1.2.1

         4 December 2009 at 10:12 am

         A new job for WMD inspectors?
   • Zorr 2.2

     4 December 2009 at 10:12 am

     No need to be so drastic there Pat. Any country who decides to pull out in future in such an event would probably just end up slapped with massive tariffs on all their exports due to the fact that they are no longer a part of the deal. I would expect such a clause to most likely be in any such agreement.
   • Bill 2.3

     4 December 2009 at 7:59 pm

     You are bang on the money Pat and I find it odd to be on the same side as CCDers insofar as being convinced that Copenhagen must fail in agreeing an ETS.
     Highly recommend this wee explanatory cartoon from the same people who made The Story of Stuff.. maybe not of interest to you Pat.

     Meanwhile, from a different source…”It is now clear that Canada will refuse to be sanctioned for abandoning its legal obligations. The Kyoto protocol can be enforced only through goodwill: countries must agree to accept punitive future obligations if they miss their current targets.
3. Clarke 3

   4 December 2009 at 9:50 am

   John Key is going to Copenhagen? Why? Is there a particularly compelling photo opportunity?
   • corkscrew 3.1

     4 December 2009 at 10:08 am

     Little Jonny’s done so well with his autograph book this year he’s got the Queen, Obama, Sarkozy and Letterman. He can get Merkel and maybe Putin … score.
     • Clarke 3.1.1

       4 December 2009 at 12:14 pm

       …. and if he can collect all those autographs, maybe he can get really truly famous and realise his long-held desire to get a guest spot on The Simpsons! Just like Tony Blair!

Links to post

1. Enough considering already! « The Standard: posted on 7 December 2009 at 3:16 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS