<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Nicholas Stern&#8217;s heresy: conceding the West&#8217;s climate burden]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by sindark</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-02-nicholas-stern-climate-china/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:04:31 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-02-nicholas-stern-climate-china/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p>It is widely acknowledged that developing countries will suffer a great deal 
from climate change. They are vulnerable to effects like <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Major_climate_change_issues#Sea_level_rise" rel="nofollow">rising 
sea levels and increased frequency and severity of <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Major_climate_change_issues#Extreme_weather" rel="nofollow">extreme 
weather. They also have more limited means available to respond, as well as 
other serious problems to deal with. Providing <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Major_climate_change_issues#Adapation" rel="nofollow">adaptation funding is therefore seen as an important means of getting them on-side for 
climate change mitigation. It could be offered as an incentive to cut 
emissions. <p>That being said, there is a strong case to be made that developing countries 
should not need to do anything in exchange for adaptation funding. Making them 
do so is essentially akin to injuring someone, then demanding something in 
return for the damages they win against you in court. The <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Major_climate_change_issues#Historical_responsibility" rel="nofollow">historical 
emissions of developed states have primarily induced the climate change 
problem; as such, developing states suffering from its effects have a right to 
demand compensation. <p>Very roughly, the developed world as a whole is responsible for about 70% of 
emissions to date. The United States has produced about 22% of the anthropogenic 
greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere; Western Europe is responsible for about 
17%; Canada represents something like 2% of the total. It can be argued that - 
by rights - states like Bangladesh and Ghana should be dividing their total 
costs for adaptation and sending the bill to other states, on the basis of 
historical emissions. <p>That being said, it is only fair to say that developed states are only 
culpable for a portion of their total emissions, on account of how the science 
of climate change was not well understood until fairly recently. Exactly where 
to draw the line is unclear, but that doesn&rsquo;t especially matter since developing 
states simply don&rsquo;t have the power to demand adaptation transfers on the basis 
of past harms. States that developed through the extensive use of fossil fuels 
will continue to use the influence they acquired through that course of military 
and economic strengthening to make others bear most of the costs for their 
pollution.</p></p></a></p></a></a></a></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p>It is widely acknowledged that developing countries will suffer a great deal 
from climate change. They are vulnerable to effects like <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Major_climate_change_issues#Sea_level_rise" rel="nofollow">rising 
sea levels and increased frequency and severity of <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Major_climate_change_issues#Extreme_weather" rel="nofollow">extreme 
weather. They also have more limited means available to respond, as well as 
other serious problems to deal with. Providing <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Major_climate_change_issues#Adapation" rel="nofollow">adaptation funding is therefore seen as an important means of getting them on-side for 
climate change mitigation. It could be offered as an incentive to cut 
emissions. <p>That being said, there is a strong case to be made that developing countries 
should not need to do anything in exchange for adaptation funding. Making them 
do so is essentially akin to injuring someone, then demanding something in 
return for the damages they win against you in court. The <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Major_climate_change_issues#Historical_responsibility" rel="nofollow">historical 
emissions of developed states have primarily induced the climate change 
problem; as such, developing states suffering from its effects have a right to 
demand compensation. <p>Very roughly, the developed world as a whole is responsible for about 70% of 
emissions to date. The United States has produced about 22% of the anthropogenic 
greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere; Western Europe is responsible for about 
17%; Canada represents something like 2% of the total. It can be argued that - 
by rights - states like Bangladesh and Ghana should be dividing their total 
costs for adaptation and sending the bill to other states, on the basis of 
historical emissions. <p>That being said, it is only fair to say that developed states are only 
culpable for a portion of their total emissions, on account of how the science 
of climate change was not well understood until fairly recently. Exactly where 
to draw the line is unclear, but that doesn&rsquo;t especially matter since developing 
states simply don&rsquo;t have the power to demand adaptation transfers on the basis 
of past harms. States that developed through the extensive use of fossil fuels 
will continue to use the influence they acquired through that course of military 
and economic strengthening to make others bear most of the costs for their 
pollution.</p></p></a></p></a></a></a></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by vbstenswick</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-02-nicholas-stern-climate-china/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:48:51 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-02-nicholas-stern-climate-china/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p>There is absolutely no reason that GHG emissions growth cannot be stopped in its tracks, without serious economic harm.&nbsp; The power output of existing power plants can be increased by use of the Organic Rankine Cycle.&nbsp; This can also be used with various industrial processes that produce waste heat.&nbsp; This will provide a buffer while new technologies such as wave power and enhanced or engineered geothermal are developed.&nbsp; This is not a time for finger pointing as to who put the CO2 into the atmosphere.&nbsp; The developing countries have an advantage in that they have not already built the power plants.&nbsp; Shutting down an existing polluter is much more difficult than not building it in the first place.&nbsp; The consequence of not dealing with climate change are so severe that no one in their right mind would ignore it.&nbsp; Put tariffs on goods from any country that does not cut CO2 emissions.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p>There is absolutely no reason that GHG emissions growth cannot be stopped in its tracks, without serious economic harm.&nbsp; The power output of existing power plants can be increased by use of the Organic Rankine Cycle.&nbsp; This can also be used with various industrial processes that produce waste heat.&nbsp; This will provide a buffer while new technologies such as wave power and enhanced or engineered geothermal are developed.&nbsp; This is not a time for finger pointing as to who put the CO2 into the atmosphere.&nbsp; The developing countries have an advantage in that they have not already built the power plants.&nbsp; Shutting down an existing polluter is much more difficult than not building it in the first place.&nbsp; The consequence of not dealing with climate change are so severe that no one in their right mind would ignore it.&nbsp; Put tariffs on goods from any country that does not cut CO2 emissions.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>