Stiglitz- Saving the Planet:

I knew Stiglitz must have read Collapse by Jared Diamond! (A good read, so is Guns, Germs, and Steel)
Here are his proposals to address Global Climate Change-

1. The USA should ratify the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
-The argument that we shouldn’t join until the developing countries are required to make harder commitments is not the way to go about this. We need to be leading the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. After we have joined, we can start working on the planned revisions for 2012, including limiting greenhouse gas emissions in the developing countries.

2. Countries complying with the Kyoto Protocol should seek countervailing duties on imports from the USA and any other noncompliant countries through the WTO to pressure the USA to comply to the Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas emissions standards. Revise the Kyoto Protocol to punish noncompliant countries with trade sanctions similar to the Montreal Protocol system.
-Kyoto needs better enforcement mechanisms and these seem understandable. Hopefully, the USA won’t require such threats to comply to the Kyoto standards, but regardless, I think this will give Kyoto some real muscle.

3. Rainforest Initiative- revise the Kyoto Protocol to financially compensate countries that maintain hardwood forests. The rainforest coalition of countries are willing to commit to greenhouse gas limits if they are paid for maintaining their forests.
-I agree with Stiglitz’s proposal to pay countries for the maintenance of their hardwood forests and biodiversity, but who will pay them?

4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Tax- revise the Kyoto Protocol to require all participating countries to institute a common tax on greenhouse gas emissions in their countries. The taxes would resolve the issue over how much emissions each country is allowed. The revenue from a greenhouse gas tax, could allow governments to reduce taxes elsewhere.
-Before reading this chapter, I wasn’t not enthusiastic about the idea of a greenhouse gas tax and believed greenhouse gas trading permits was the best way to go to ensure progress on reducing emissions. But, though the emissions trading permits seem to work on the national level, on the global level, it runs into implementation problems. The common tax proposal would probably be easier to implement. Greenhouse gas emissions would cost everyone the same amount, which seems pretty fair, and the developing countries that this might hit hard, will at least get to retain the revenue, and so might offset any ill effects with tax cuts elsewhere. But how would the tax be collected. I imagine advanced countries such as some in East Asia, North America, and Europe could develop collection systems by taxing corporations, gasoline, and electricity, but how about developing countries. Probably quite a few could manage such a tax and those that couldn’t would probably find an emissions trading system even more impossible anyway. The main concern is that there won’t be clear targets. Maybe Kyoto can set global targets for the common tax to reduce emissions and raise the tax accordingly to meet those goals. Also, maybe Kyoto can allow those developed countries that have already started using the emissions trading system to opt to continue that system. Governments could then choose whichever system would work best for their country. Lastly, I think Kyoto’s goals even in such a system should have less strict goals for developing countries than developed ones, so if the tax had to raised really high to meet the goals, maybe the developing countries would be allowed to keep their tax rates lower.

Ideally, Singer’s proposal for a global emissions trading system based on a per capita basis according to either the UN population projections for 2050 or based on the current population proportions would be enacted. In practice, however, if this proposal is unworkable, then the common tax would be an acceptable alternative.