Japan's announcement that it would not participate in a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol
caused quite a stir. As I have
shown in a paper on Japan's proposed emissions reductions, it simply cannot hit the aggressive targets that were proposed by a former government during a moment of populist over exuberance.
Any commitment by Japan to a Kyoto 2 would be substantively meaningless, even if politically popular among some well-meaning but deeply misguided activists. Japan should be applauded for its refusal to go along with a charade. Of course, in the climate debate nothing is ever so simple.
7 comments:
Some might say that "decarbonization" as a percentage of population or GDP is simply moving the goal posts under the veil of a charade.
What's the dividing line between a charade and real substance on climate policy?
@Craig
It is a charade if the commitments, however measured, are unrealistic.
It is real substance if the policy in question will actually be implemented.
It makes little difference whether any particular policy option is expressed as a percentage reduction in tons of CO2 emitted or as a target rate of decarbonization.
But, as Roger has repeatedly demonstrated, many policy options which appear to be substantive proposals when expressed as a percentage reduction, are revealed to be pure fantasy once translated to rates of decarbonization.
Jason,
I find policy to be of real substance when it bends present reality to desired future. What climate policy proposed today actually does that?
Even Joe Romm at Climate Progress has a post up uncritical of Japan's action (written by a gent from the Center for American Progress).
http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/07/has-japan-killed-the-kyoto-protocol-does-it-matter/
" .... by taking this position Japan may also help to settle ...... the standoff between those who want to hold onto the protocol’s crude division of the world between developed and developing countries and those who want to move to a framework which may be more in line with the realty of solving the problem."
Craig 1st said... 3
"What climate policy proposed today actually does that?"
If really depends 'how much' reduction you are looking for.
Steam Coal priced above $100/ton delivered(current global price) will encourage folks to adopt nuclear power up to about 40% of total generation capacity.
Japan, South Korea and various other countries already have plans for 40% nuclear regardless of any 'climate treaty'.
There are current limitations to the nuclear industries build capacity and the rate at which it can expand. Until those capacity limitations are resolved building an 'uneconomic' nuclear power plant in Japan just means someone else will have the choice of either building an 'uneconomic' coal fired plant or doing without.
In the US the economics are different then the rest of the world. Coal can be mined in Wyoming for $15/ton. Even with that burning coal in the US Southeast doesn't have substantial economic advantages due to the cost of transporting coal.
Harrywr2 -5
Isn't that carbon policy masquerading as climate policy? Again what currently proposed actual climate policy will have a substantive, demonstrable effect on climate?
Craig 1st,
It's economic policy(save my wallet), masquerading as carbon policy, masquerading as climate policy(save the planet).
Sound economic policy results in wealth, wealth gives us the ability to adapt. Adapting to whatever climate exists has been humanities climate policy for a very long time.
Post a Comment