Developed country voters don’t care about moral CO2 arguments

Here’s something for the world leaders attending the Major Economies Forum today in London to think about. US and UK voters, to be specific, don’t care much about responsibility for historical emissions, according to a survey by Harris Interactive commissioned by the FT.

Only a minority of respondents in those countries believe that developed countries should help developing countries meet the cost of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. And there is strong support across all the countries surveyed for the view that China should make the most emissions cuts, thanks to its recently-attained status as the biggest emitter:

Check the wording of that first question, though - it’s rather stark and makes no mentioned of historical emissions. But as the second table above shows, making that point in the question only seems to hold sway with mainland Europeans, who are a lot more supportive of rich countries contributing to the cost of poorer countries than Britons or Americans.

There’s also a large number of apparently undecided respondents on these questions, which was evident in many of the answers to other questions in the survey (more on those below).

Reaching agreement at Copenhagen requires participation from developing countries, who after all are going to contribute most of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come. Those developing countries don’t see why they should have to pay for a low-carbon development when the developed world grew rich while consuming cheap fossil fuel with abandon. This, as Fiona Harvey alludes in the FT, is why some developed world leaders have been keen to praise China’s efforts to reduce emissions in recent months.

Either way, the moral/historical argument actually seems to be detrimental, at least in terms of persuading Americans that their government should be helping out developing countries. Look at the “Net agree” figures for US respondents in the breakdown for two questions (the first of which is illustrated above) on whether developed countries should contribute to poorer countries’ carbon-reduction efforts:

“How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? – Developing countries have not caused as much climate change, so developed countries should be prepared to give more aid to them to deal with the consequences.”

Versus this:

“How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? – Developed countries, such as the US and EU member states, should help fund developing countries, such as China, in their efforts to reduce emissions.”

Yep - slightly more Americans (and Spaniards) were supportive of rich countries funding poor countries when the topic of historical emissions was not mentioned. Brits gave similar responses on both questions. The differences aren’t huge, but it’s slightly counter-intuitive that some people think that rich countries should provide funding, but not because they are more responsible for historical emissions.

Another interesting result is that energy security actually rated lower as a concern for UK and Italian respondents than it did three years ago:

Coutsey:

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/10/19/developed-country-voters-dont-care-about-moral-co2-arguments/

Coal Price increase : Power sector feels the pinch..

Coal price hiked last was December12, 2007 ......

• The Union Government allowed Coal India to hike prices by 11 per cent on an average with effect from October 16, 2009. The price rise comes after nearly two years. The hike in prices may leave a positive impact of Rs 4,600 crore on the company’s bottomline on an annualised basis. Without the price hike, the company would have ended the year with lower profits due to negative impact of a wage hike . The Union Government has also allowed CIL to implement a remunerative pricing mechanism to remove the fundamental weakness of two of its perennially sick subsidiaries — Bharat Coking Coal (BCCL) and Eastern Coalfields (ECL) — despite owning the country’s best coal reserves.
• The prices of coal produced by all other subsidiaries have been increased by 10 per cent. According to a CIL release, BCCL will have a higher price rise of 15 per cent for its 30-million-tonne raw coal production which include the country’s only source of prime coking coal. ECL is allowed to charge import-linked prices for A and B grade thermal coal production, accounting for over 30 per cent of the approximately 31 mt total production.
• The coal price hike would leave a maximum of 0.16 per cent inflationary pressure on the economy. It is estimated that for the power sector, the cost of coal would increase by Rs 77 a tonne and the price of electricity would go up 5 paise a unit. The price of cement is expected to move up by Rs 20 a tonne.
• The price hike was long overdue and after the wage revision of CIL, it became impossible for the coal companies to maintain a healthy profitability ratio. Some projects became unviable due to financial implications of the wage revision.
• But on the other hand, it directly impacts the coal consuming sectors, particularly power sector the most. The power sector already started lobbying the regulatory commission to pass through the price hike to the consumers. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited (GSECL) has already expressed its concerns on coal price hike.
• The revival of economy is a good sign for the industries. Coal production which has weightage of 3.2% in the IIP (Index of Industrial Production) registered a growth of 6.5% (provisional) in September 2009 and electricity generation (weight of 10.17% in the IIP) registered a growth of 7.5% (Provisional) in September 2009.Thogh the signs of improvement in growth is quite encouraging, the price increase may send a wrong signal to the market which is already struggling to come out of global recession. The steel sector may absorb the price hike but it would be very difficult for the cement sector to absorb the cost. Currently the cement sector is not increasing the cement price and watching the market movements but they will definitely pass on the increase in coal price hike to consumers.
• On one hand when the country is under severe power shortage scenario, it is to be seen that how consumers behave to a hike in power sector tariff due to price hike by the major input for the sector (i.e) coal.

Carbon for All at Copenhagen!! Is anybody listening?

What to expect at Copenhagen! A complete disaster and a big failure..

The big guns in term of carbon emissions( read US and Australia) with their big kitty will never bow down to so called G77 Countries and never take a global target of reducing emissions.

It is clear now when US is all set to take a domestic legislation for carbon reduction not a global commitment as others perceive.

The Targets:

Global Consensus: 40% reduction over 1990 levels for industrialized countries

US Tagets: 20% below 2005 levels by 2020..no where near the global consensus and joining its chorus Australia, one of the major emitters of CO2.

US has increased its green house emissions by at least 16% between 1990 and 2005 and never committed to Kyoto protocol.

Take a look at its global share, having 5% of world’s population, releases 18% of total global emission and have a share of 30% of the global stock of carbon emission.

Australia at the other hand increased its carbon emission by 40% after 1990 and was not a party to Kyoto protocol. It is a loyal ally to the US at this front.

I am never convinced at carbon credits being introduced by Kyoto protocol. No doubt carbon emission a global phenomenon and how could buying certain credits help reduces the overall carbon emission.

It is nothing but weighing the carbon emission in terms of money. It clearly indicates that there is compensation to virtually everything and if you have the money keep going polluting environment and buy carbon credits with your bucks and name them as green bucks.

What a solution!! This is just an eye wash and at best US will buy carbon credits to showcase its concerns for global emission.

The real criminals are no doubt the US and Australia who despite their large share in carbon stocks is reluctant to take carbon reduction target.

What best we can expect, an internal target for US and it will keep pressurize other nations to buy their point or perish.

India and China may resist it but I sincerely doubt their capability in bringing US to the negotiation table to discuss for a global emission reduction target. The US now pressurizing India to pay heed to what they say and pressure mounting on to break the G77 countries and it may take any course to break this grand alliance. And if it happens, it will be a global disaster.

It’s high time to differentiate US at least on carbon emission front and make it abide by the global emission target. Is it possible? The question remains to be answered and all eyes will be set for Copenhagen!!