The Climate Rules 6 comments

15 Nov 2009 @ 22:28, by Unknown Regarding the ensuing Copenhagen Meeting and Treaty on Climate Change Nov 15 2009 Earth Sunday Okay lets simply what the problem is the collective global car weve built is the size of the Country of Denmark with an exhaust pipe circumference of an area of 7 sq miles and runs a minimum of 12 hours a day 365 days a year and has increasingly been running for the last 100 years. Now just off hand I would say that thats going to effect something in a closed system or Greenhouse such as is the Earth and its Atmosphere. Okay insight This Copenhagan Agreement cannot be done on a Geopolitical Framework ie Country Framework Why ? Because climate does not recognize geopolitical borders. So right there things get screwed up. We can set a per person capita for a global average though of CO2 emissions ie .0.8 MT (mega tonnes) of CO2 per person, as a lowest common basic CO2 Emissions denominator for every person on the planet but then it has to be adjusted not on a Country or Nation basis per sae but on an Ecozonal basis. ie a person in an Tropical or African or some other benign like or type of ecozone or climate region does not necessarily need as much energy and or resources to survive at their current lifestyle as a person in a colder, harsher or more volatile climate. Just how much lee way we give each ecozone CO2 emission credits for is the question. They have established that there are about 20 to 100 major ecozones on Earth though so if you if you adjust accordingly to specific ecozones instead of countries or politics youre a little further ahead into it. If though climate is changing then you have factor in that ecozones will eventually follow suit though. We thus can not all abide by the same rules though because it is in reality not a level playing field. Why? Because climate tends to be GeoRegion or Ecozone specific and not Political. We can though restrict per person CO2 emissions to an doable average around the globe for a starters to establish some kind of fair handle on the situation. Somewhere perhaps lower than the mean between the highest and lowest current rate . why lower?. Because we have already exceeded the Earths biocapacity by 1.3 % so we thus have to strive for perhaps at least a .3% global reduction of CO2 emissions below the mean per person average or current rate just to be in keeping with what the planet and environment can afford.ie we have to live within or Biocapacity and Environmental Means. So... how bout something like this... see the Climate Rules The Climate Rules Rule 1: The allowable global average of CO2 emissions per person will be capped at 0.8 MT CO2 Emissions per person. Countries or ecozones exceeding that limit will have to begin reductions or pay a fine to a global climate change insurance fund and developing countries can not exceed that maximum Rule 2. Ecozone Exception Rule. Rule one can be modified to take into account the local ecozonal conditions of a certain region, that is that more CO2 emissions will be granted or allowed for ecozones on the basis and according to and of the survival and basic needs energy requirements of a particular ecozone.( 2.0 MT CO2 emission Ecozone Maximum exception allowance) Rule 3. A Grandfathering Provision. Rule One and Two can be modified for Developed Nations/Ecozones that can and will be extended a certain amount of Grandfathered CO2 emission credits on the condition, basis and stipulation that they assist developing nations/ecozones with funds, research and technologies to develop cleaner, greener and renewable energy sources and that these grandfathered developed nations/ecozones work towards actively reducing their total Ecozone CO2 emissions to a lower 3.8 MT target.( 1.0 MT per person of CO2 emissions Developed Nation/Ecozone Grand Fathered Maximum allowance.) So in Conclusion that brings the total maximum allowable CO2 emissions any nation/ecozone can have to 3.8 MT per person if the maximums of each rule is followed. At present the USA is at 5.0 MT per person (highest and above allowed ) or so and Africa at 0.47 MT per person (lowest and below ) It will thus take so doing but it is a start and perhaps doable Hope this makes sense. global citizen ........................................................................ Licquid wrote" An easy way to think of it is: ... since there is a relatively finite amount of natural resources in our world, each of us will "spend" an average-daily-balance ... the + and - of those resources. That's where the truth will hit the road in terms of how much we're all entitled to, and what we're leaving our future generations. Anyone to take a lead on this? .......................................................... swanny wrote: No no one can lead on such complex administrative nightmare but a community together has synergistic advantages over the one. Its not so much a division of labor though then but an allocation of resources and responsibilities. If for instance we say China or no Japan perhaps make us the most efficient hybrids you can and we say Alberta give us some really clean energy and California provide us with some fresh greens during the winter and so on if we can maximise perhaps thus the global communities potentials at what they do best and figure out some better transport and transit and currency system or simply communications over the internet.

6 comments

---

Your Name:
Your URL:	(or email)
Subject:
Comment:
	For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

---

New Civilization Network - Personal News Logs - Workgroup News Logs - Syndication