US, China, Wealthy Nations Should Bear the Costs of Reducing Carbon Emissions: Stockholm Environment Institute
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 08.29.08
Not that the principle of this is new, but in an effort to push forward a new global treaty on greenhouse gas emission reduction, the Stockholm Environment Institute has said that the United States, China, and other wealthy nations should be responsible for the majority of the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Bloomberg reports.
Wealthy Would Have to Pay For Poor Nations' Reductions
Under the proposal both national income and overall emissions would be considered when determining the level of carbon emission cuts a country would be required to make. Furthermore, wealthy nations would be obliged to do more than simply cut their own emissions, but would also be required to pay for emissions reduction projects in poorer nations.
US + China Responsible For 41% of Global Carbon Cuts
The Stockholm Institute proposal would require the US to be responsible for carrying out 26.7% of global greenhouse gas reductions by 2020, China would be responsible for 14% of global emission reduction. Of the two-thirds of global reductions for which wealthy nations would be responsible, half of those would come from supporting reductions in poorer countries.
Under the plan, a poorer nation is defined as one which has a per capita income of $7,500 a year or less.
I would love to point you in the direction of the full details of the proposal on the Stockholm Environment Institute’s website, but it does not yet appear to be available. The details here were presented by the institute’s energy director in Berlin earlier today.
via :: Bloomberg
Carbon Emissions
Time for Plan B: Cutting Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2020
Japan to Spend $4 Billion Next Year to Reduce Carbon Emissions: Develop Clean Energy Solutions, Electric Vehicles, Carbon Capture & Storage
Carbon Emissions in UK 49% Higher Than Acknowledged: New Report Claims
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Green Glossary: Meltwater
- Take it from a Beatle: Cut Your Carbon Footprint by Making Mondays Meat-Free
- Green Glossary: Intellectual Property
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
- Build a Greenhouse without Going Broke
- How to Cool Your Vehicle Quickly During the Intense Summer Heat and Reduce Your Carbon Emissions
And they expect them to agree to this *how*?
We Americans have been willing to pay our share for years, its our out-of-touch government that's been the obstacle. The modern environmental movement was born here, and we're ready to step up.
HAHA! That is classic. I don't mind helping out, but being responsible for other coutries to lower their emissions? Their emissions must be excessive in Stockholm, because they must be pretty high to think that any country would agree to that outlandish "conclusion".
I had a professor in my undergraduate days that told me you must be careful with what you should or you will end up "shoulding" all over yourself. How do they justify reducing me to third world levels of poverty by making me pay to offset the third world?
its about time someone, particularly a weathy nation, said this. For too long industrialised countries have been putting the burden on developing countries. And I don't care what the critics say until you a barge full of unrecycleable plastic and e-waste arriving at 3rd world dock as a means of "dealing with it"
about bloody time...
Outstanding. Gotta love those Swedes. We should put them in charge of it. They haven't ticked anyone off too badly...
It seems as though while we are trying to cut emmissions (although we could do better) China is making all the mistakes everyone else made in the early industial revolution. They should be using the latest technology to make Green decisions not just short term Greed decisions. They are making more emmissions per capita everyday & we keep spending more money with them everyday! How can we get them to go Green or redirect our dollars elsewhere? Are tarriffs on products made in dirty plants possible? They close plants here because they can't be competitive with China's loose environmental enforcement & cheap labor. Put a tarriff on them that make the cost of doing good Green business here competitive!
Everything sounded great until you get to the part that says:
"Furthermore, wealthy nations would be obliged to do more than simply cut their own emissions, but would also be required to pay for emissions reduction projects in poorer nations."
This is exactly why the US didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol!
Don't you people get it? You are causing more harm than good when you come up with too challenging of requirements .
Start small, and build up gradually - or continue to get nothing but cynicism in return!!!