- Breitbart's Big Hollywood (H/T to FReeper Minus_The_Bear)
- American Family Association. (Free, but log-in registration required.)
Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 10/17/2009 11:04:32 PM PDT by buszero
These are my notes for Climate Change Justice from the Georgetown Law Journal and written by Eric A. Posner and Obama's Regulatory czar Cass R. Sunstein. I tweeted them on Twitter, so they are in abbreviated form.
Sunstein: p1 Intro: US must reduce production of greenhouse gasses cuz we are a wealthy nation & other nations are poor
Sunstein: p1 Intro: "Corrective justice"= existing “stock” of greenhouse gas is from past actions of the US. Thus, US should reduce it.
Sunstein: p1567 para 2: w/ their emissions, US & China committing tortious acts against other nations & regions
Sunstein: p1567 para 2: Corrective justice requires that largest emitting nation (that's *US*) to pay damages & scale back emissions
Sunstein: p 1565 para 2: 2 assumptions:1. Wrld wld benefit frm agreemnt to reduce grnhse emission 2. Some nations (US&China) wld not benefit
Sunstein: p 1565 para 2: US less vulnerable- Model: If wrld settled on carbon tax @ $40/ton, US wld lose as opposed to $10, $15, or $20 /ton
Sunstein: p 1569 para 2: International Paretianism: US wld lose & world wld benefit & have to make up for it with side payments to the US
Sunstein: p 1570 para 2: Distributive Justice: US not arguing for paymnts. Nations shld pay China to participate in climate chng agreemnt
Sunstein: p 1570 para 3: Corrective Justice: Largest emitters (US) impose serious risks onto othr nations & shld not B compensatd to correct
Ok folks. Those seem to be the definitions that we're working with. There might be more, but let's see where he takes us from here.
Sunstein: pp1571-1572: We reject International Parentianism, but do not excld a "rough justice" to achve optml redistrbtn or corrctv justice
Sunstein: p 1573 para 3,4: 4 parts if corr justice is goal: I) facts abt clim chg II&III) Qs of dist justc & correctv justc IV) emissn rghts
Sunstein: p 1574 para 3,4: Pt I: 2 approaches to reduce grnhse emissns: Wrldwide Carbn tax & Cap&Trade akin to Kyoto Protocol
Sunstein: p1575-76: Impact of Kyoto Prot small if only indust nations complied, but significant if developing nations also complied
Sunstein: p 1577 para 1: Kyoto Prot estmts cost US $325B=10x Montreal Prot=1/2 entire cost of Kyoto Prot=80% of wrlds TOT cost of Kyot Prot
Sunstein: p 1577: Chart to show US and China as top emitters of global emissions
Sunstein: p 1578: Chart showing currnt & projectd CO2 emissions. Develping wrld in 2030 to contribute 55%. US expected to B well below China
Sunstein: p 1579: China apprntly surpassd United States in CO2 emissions in June 2007 or perhaps earlier. Greenhse gasses dissipate slowly
Sunstein: p 1579: Abt 1/2 the CO2 emittd in 1907 still remains. If wrld suddenly stopped emittng CO2 2day, CO2 in 2107 wld remain 90% of now
Sunstein: p 1580 para 2: Guess on victim of clim chg: Poorest Nations=biggest losers; US=biggest winner
Sunstein: p 1580 para 2: US=biggest winner cuz adaptive cpcty ,small %age of econ depsnds on agricultr, wealthy & higher latitude
Sunstein: p 1583 para 3: US should face special obligations in contxt of clim chg & should sign an agrmnt in worlds interest but not its own
Sunstein: p 1583 para 3: US "is obliged to transfer large sums of money to compensate countries at risk from clim chg" - Yes, he says that!
Sunstein: p 1583-86: If an asteroid were to hit India in 100 yrs, should the world pay to divert the asteroid. Who should pay? How much?
Sunstein: p 1588-89: Mock scenario: Clim chg threatens massive loss of life. Grnhs gas redctn cld be best way to redistribute wlth (welfare)
Sunstein: p 1589 para 2: RISK: Argument FOR distributive justice is strong when facing catastrophe & weak when catastrophe is unlikely.
Sunstein: p 1589 para 2: RISK: Argument FOR distributive justice is strong when facing catastrophe & weak when catastrophe is unlikely.
Sunstein: p 1589 para 3: Developmnt aid is likely more effective than grnhous gas restrictions as method of helping poor ppl in poor nations
Sunstein: p 1590 para 1: Cap&Trade gets around corrupt govts by giving poor countries permits that it could sell to industry & make money
Sunstein: p 1590 para 1: "significant emissions reductions by wealthy nations would directly benefit poor nations"
Sunstein: p1590 p2: Even though grnhs gas cuts are indirect ways to help poor ppl or poor nations, its not feasible to provide direct aid
Sunstein: pg 1591 para 1: We cant exclde-that desirbl distrbtn-is more likely-or more effectvly accmplshed thru clim polcy than foreign aid
Sunstein: pg 1591 para 3: Many ppl believ that by-its past actions & policies, the US w/ other dev nat'ns, is to blame for prob of clim chng
Sunstein: p 1592 para 1: Corrective Justice: Altho China is now the largst grnhs gas emitter, the US has contributd more to existing stock
Sunstein: pg 1592 para 2: Corr Justice requires US to devote signfcnt resources to remedying prob: paymts, agreeing to reductns, clim pact
Sunstein: pg 1592 para 3: "This argument enjoys a great deal of support in certain circles and seems intuitively correct." ... Actual quote!
Sunstein: p 1593 para 1: Wrongdoer Identity Prob: Current stock of grnhs gas is reslt of ppl who are now dead.Current Americans not respsble
Sunstein: pg 1593 para 3: Insist that Americans today benefit from grnhs gas emitting activities of past Americans & thus not wrong to pay
Sunstein: pg 1593 para 3: This argmnt is similar to slave reparation debate argmnt wher Americans 2day benfit frm toil of slaves 150 yrs ago
Sunstein: pg 1594 para 1: "The idea of corrective justice, building on the tort analogy, does not seem to fit the climate change situation."
Sunstein: pg 1594 para 2: Clim chg is anticpatd to produce benefits 4 many nations by incrsing agri prodctvty & by reducing extremes of cold
Sunstein: pg 1594 para 2: A proper accting is necessary for Corr Justice cuz Americans benefitted whereas ppl in, lets say India, did not
Sunstein: pg 1594 para 3: Difficult to ask whether Indians wld be better off today if Americans of the past had not emitted greenhouse gases
Sunstein: pg 1594-95: Corp liablty is justifd on grnds other than corrective justice on welfarist ground deterring emplyees from wrongdoing
Sunstein: pg 1595-96: Victims of clim chg live in future & some are harmd now. A successful abatement (reduction) prgm benefits future gens
Sunstein: pg 1596 para 3: Arguments on welfarist grounds R complicatd: Grnhs gas harms future generations while amassing capital
Sunstein: pg 1597 para 1: Welfarist grounds for abatement prgms are justified but its not a point about corrective or distributive justice
Sunstein: p 1594 para 3,4: Causatn problm weakens Corr Justice: Hard to prove that a villge in India, wiped out by monsoon, was reslt of US
Sunstein: p 1594 para 5: Just like tort law, perhaps sci & econ studies can find aggregate nat'l losses & connect w/ clim chg
Sunstein: p 1598-99: Corr Justice requires culpability. Weakst standard is negligence cuz its hard to determine any particlar actvty 2 blame
Sunstein: p 1600 para 2,3: Is US govt culpable? US reductions wld have had little or no effect overall cuz China was not under Kyoto Prot
Sunstein: p 1602: "Rough Justice" is also weak cuz ppl take pride in their country & would not admit to their country having done bad things
Sunstein: p 1603: China wants per capita wrldwide carbon tax & wld forbid poor nations from achieving levels held by wealthy nations
Sunstein: pg 1603-1606: Grnhs gas charts.
Sunstein: p 1607 para 3: Based on its moderate per capita statistic, China argues that raising the standard of living is their 1st priority
Sunstein: p 1607-08: China argues moral obligation that the world bears greatest share & rich countries shld use wealth to help poor nations
Sunstein: pg 1608 para 3,4: Many prefer Cap&Trade. China prefers per capita cuz it wld require US to purchase $100's of billions of rights
Sunstein: p 1609 para 3: China may demand or deserve side-payments much like the Montreal Protocol.
Sunstein: p 1610 para 4: Fairness argument: If some states receive a large benefit, then it needs to make a pymt to a small-benefit state
Sunstein: p 1610 para 5: Fairness argument differs from corr justice argument cuz earlier contribution of stock grnhs gases is not relevant
Sunstein: p 1610 para 5: Fairness argument differs from redistributive justice cuz a state’s wealth is not relevant
Sunstein: p 1611 para 1: Kyoto Protocol puts a large burden on the US & no burden at all on developing countries that would benefit greatly
Sunstein: p 1611 para 2: Conclusion: Either a worldwide carbon tax or some kind of cap&trade program would be suitable for int'l agreement
Sunstein: p 1611 para 2: Wealthy US bears the largest burden & also important is how to distribute the costs of global emissions reductions
Sunstein: p 1612 para 2: We believe the proper approach to clim chg shld depend on welfarist considerations; corr justice are irrelevant
>Sunstein: p 1583-86: If an asteroid were to hit India in 100 yrs, should the world pay to divert the asteroid.
The asteroid should be diverted to hit the United States, to make up for the one that hit Mexico 65 million years ago which the United States did nothing about.
If it sounds like Copenhagen and looks like Copenhagen and smells like Copenhagen, it must be Change is a-coming.
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention...
Where does Obozo find these mutants? Some of these czars would make Lenin blush! I’m still in denial that this Marxist was capable of decieving the majority of the voting public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.