However, it isn’t just the historic “climate debt” issue that is not being taken into account by the rich countries, reporters, and many observers, as the rich countries and their backers attempt to frame the issue as the poor won’t do anything.

There is something fundamental that is being missed in the reporting and discussion I’ve heard so far.

The offer of the G8 was fundamentally unfair, even if history is ignored. Take the 80% cut by 2050 the G8 offered to commit to if the rest of the world would cooperate in holding total global emissions to 50% of what they are today, dig out the population and emission figures and do the math. The result is that each G8 citizen in 2050 would have the right to emit 2.5 tonnes of CO2, while each non-G8 citizen would have the right to emit 1.45 tonnes of CO2.

The NYTimes editorialized that “it was not immediately clear why” the G8 proposal was rejected. When you look at the offer in per capita terms, even if you leave aside the historic emissions, what is happening is crystal clear.

Here’s what Pradipto Ghosh, former environment secretary of India, explaining India’s position during the leadup to the 2007 G8 meeting:

“This is our challenge to the West. ‘You do the best you can, and we’ll match it’. If the West thinks that India will subscribe to any long-term solution that is not based on per capita emissions then it is very misguided.”

Would US negotiators entertain for an instant a Chinese offer that amounted to each Chinese having the right to emit 70% more than each American by 2050?

This 2007 offer from India forgives the history, but demands long term equality per capita. Its something the G8 or the U.S. could work with, and it is being blithely ignored by most.

P.S.

One way activists can critique what’s been done by the House so far, i.e. Waxman-Markey, is to ask Mr. Waxman why he has apparently abandoned all his previous experience as he championed this legislation. For instance, quoting Waxman from his recent book, “The Waxman Report” Section 1 “The Art of Making Laws”, Chapter 5 “The Clean Air Act”:

“The greatest misconception about making laws is the assumption that most problems have clear solutions, and reaching compromise mainly entails splitting the difference between partisan extremes. This is rarely the case, and legislation crafted this way usually fails. ‘Meeting in the middle’ doesn’t work for the simple reason that it invariably neglects to solve whatever problem raised the issue in the first place. Take the problem of smog. If 200 million tons of pollution must be eliminated to clean the air, and industry wants to emit 100 million more, any splitting of the difference would effectively make things worse: The offending industry would wind up being saddled with additional costs, and the air wouldn’t be noticeably cleaner. Nobody wins. Successful legislation, on the other hand would find a way to solve the problem and clean the air without putting anyone out of business or costing anyone a job.” – page 77, The Waxman Report

So, by Waxman’s own definition of what successful legislation is, Waxman-Markey is an abject failure. For those who say pass anything, just get a law on the books, it can be improved later, Waxman has this to say, speaking about some of what happened after the “Orphan Drug Act” which he championed, was passed:

“The episode serves as a stark reminder of the industry’s tremendous power, and why it is important, when crafting legislation, never to give too much away. In all my years as a legislator, I can’t recall a single example of a law where, when drug companies were granted excessive government concessions, we ever managed to scale them back later”

- page 73 The Waxman Report

Perhaps Waxman believes coal companies are different than drug companies, but I doubt it. After reading this, I felt like throwing the book at Waxman. Maybe some demonstrators who live near D.C. might consider this as an idea. Fill up his office with copies of his own book, by throwing them in as if his office was a dumpster, with the passages I’ve quoted underlined.

As Bill Maher says, I kid Mr Waxman….