There are a number of levers we can use to get China and India to change their position. The first would be to get the United States to take on a target that is appropriate to its historical emissions and global needs for greenhouse gas reductions. This will probably not happen because the US Senate is still largely beholden to the business lobby. But you never know. The follow-up to that would be to set a carbon levy for countries that do not accept a quantitative commitment of their own, and to enlarge the adaptation fund and direct it towards countries that do accept a quantitative commitment. Standard carrot & stick approach. If the OECD countries agree to that, I’d guess China and India would find it better to cooperate.

Your piece is just as much speculation as the scenario in the above paragraph because there is no test case. There has been no first movement from the US, the US has never been willing to take on an appropriate target, nor has there been any notable pressure from the US for developing countries to also take on commitments (logical, as the US has no standing whatsoever, but still). I proffer that this is because inaction by developing countries is a comfortable excuse for the US to obscure its own free-rider behaviour.

That aside, we can’t just throw over the entire institutional architecture that the rest of the world has agreed to simply because the United States is unable to overcome issues that stem from its own peculiar political economy.

As for the other side, the EU has already agreed to its unilateral policy, which is insufficient, but if there is no meaningful commitment by other parties, my guess and hope is that it will stick to that and try to effect change elsewhere by linking to its ETS.

Yes, I largely disregard the US position which is basically as you describe it, except that you have been quite unfair to Al Gore. But why did I disregard the US? Precisely because I feel those who take your position are disregarding China and India. We all know your point about the US.

Why do you think China and India will abandon their position of 15 years? Have they been stupid this whole time? Have they been playing games with us? I cannot think of any other explanation if you are right.

Instead, I propose that they are smart, reasonable and not playing games. Why not consider that possibility? I am not saying the U.S. has been smart and reasonable — you should note the distinction.

I believe, as does Joseph Stiglitz, that China rejects the cap that you think would be good for them to adopt, because it would be extremely risky for them given their history of rapid and unpredictable growth. Also, we feel that they would justifiably see it as extremely unfair. Why should they adopt a cap 4 times lower than ours when we have emitted 4 times more than them.

They say this is unfair. It looks unfair. But you say they are wrong? or they are just gaming us? My point is to treat China, India and other developing countries with respect and to be realistic about the US. I may be wrong, but I don’t think it will turn into an angel overnight. Obama is not your average American.

Best regards,
Steven Stoft

If we set a cap on greenhouse gas emissions taking into account a) the science and the need to contain warming to 2 degrees Celsius b) the historical carbon debt of the western world and c) take a contraction and convergence model, we could also get China and India to set a cap. That cap (a fair cap) would be closer to staying level at 2008 in the case of China in the 2012-2020 period and growing in the case of India.

The issue is that Americans would not accept it because the commitment they would have to take under a fair system would make them too uncomfortable.