That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
No, but it sounds depressingly like the development policies we've seen where poor people in rich countries fill the pockets of rich people in poor countries. It also finds its way into the hands of NGOs and other transnational organisations, which start with laudable aims but rapidly become businesses mainly looking out for their own prospects. Logically, their ultimate aim is to put themselves out of business, but of course, that won't happen and even if they solved the problem they're supposed to be solving, they'd invent a new one. That's partly what CAGW has been about.
Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
And there's no getting around the fact that they are not going to. Hence the hook for all these taxes and charges. It's a bit like religion really, making people feel guilty for things they are almost bound to do and thereby providing a mechanism of control.
De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
This is a Utopian dream, essentially socialist, at least it involves the idea that big government can control markets and can bring about a Utopia, even when doing so clearly involves going against the grain of human nature. I don't see that it does bring about a kind of development very different from development aid, unless they think they can change the political nature of Africa say. The Chinese are busily buying the resources of Africa, and it doesn't appear they are very willing to go along with these schemes, except to the point it suits them. The answer to the problems of Africa is trade, which the EU among others is desperate to avoid, or is actively damaging. For instance http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/0 ... -fish.html
Well, it can be seen as Utopian dreaming, but what underlies it is a hunger for power and money and a breathtaking arrogance.
Looking at history, there's no reason to have faith in government planning, and the more ambitious the plans, the bigger the mess.
I suggest that not only Climate Change is a blind but redistribution is also largely a blind. Both of these carry a large number of useful fools along, as does the prospect of trillions to be made off the racket on the side. The real purpose (or at least the consequence) is to put money and power into the hands of transnational government. I've never been much for World Government/NWO theories and it isn't exactly a conspiracy; it's just where the tide of events will take us unless we are careful. It's all rather like the EU, some people were big government types, some people had been through WWII and were of the 'never again' persuasion, lots of people in power were bribed one way or another, lots of others simply had no faith in the UK. I reckon that a lot of modern politicians think it's a mess, but it's far easier to go along with than call a halt to, even if the end is disaster. Very few could visualise where it was going to end up and that the problems it created were going to be larger than the problems it attempted to solve, of those that could, most thought it wouldn't happen on their watch. Once it got going, it developed its own inertia.
I find this Cancun business very scary, not least because our idiots are desperate to lead the charge and we've sent a True Believer.