Leaders from 190 nations are meeting in Paris to decide on the language of an accord that will tackle the perceived global warming problem.
The biggest obstacle is whether to commit to a global temperature rise limit of 1.5 or 2C above the pre-industrial era. Neither of these two numbers has any real significance because no one knows what benefit they might have, if any. Yet, everyone is passionate about their importance. The richest countries, having done all the damage, are pushing for the lower number. The poor countries, concerned about their future economic development, have difficulty accepting even the higher one.
Once again, it's a case of the mighty trying to shove bitter medicine down the throats of the weak. It's simply immoral to force poor countries into this type of agreement, which will ensure that they will never improve their lot.
To me the right solution is not only simple, but also fair. Forget about meaningless temperature targets, and get down to brass tax. The climate change models being used to make long-term predictions are not worth the paper their written on!
In my view, the important parameter is per capita carbon consumption. Those countries with a per capita carbon consumption above the global average should be taxed in proportion to their overconsumption. That is, the higher their overconsumption, the higher the tax. If they don't like the high taxes, then reducing carbon consumption to the global average will reduce, and ultimately eliminate, their tax. Doing so would benefit everyone. But that's the catch. Those that are used to having all the benefits to themselves don't want to share them with others.
Why a carbon tax, when CO2 may not be a factor in rising global temperatures?
A carbon tax will help reduce consumption of fossil fuels, particularly coal because it's the dirtiest and most harmful to the planet and our health. Furthermore, it's a problem now, not one hundred years from now!
On 12/12/2015, the rich countries will leave Paris triumphant. Once again, they will have imposed their will on the weak. Of course, they will have made some promises to provide compensation to the poor, but it's all nonsense. The level of compensation will be pocket change for them: only a small fraction of the taxes their big corporations would pay for their overconsumption in a fair and egalitarian world.
YOU ARE READING
CLIMATE CHANGE: what does it mean?
Non-FictionThe words Climate Change have entered our vocabulary with hurricane force. It's difficult to pick up a newspaper, view the evening news, or read more than a few minutes on social networks, or the web without encountering these words. But what do the...
