If you were in a desert with only one bucket of water to survive, and the other 5 people you were with were guzzling it down like crazy, and you were taking small sips, would you actually entertain them telling you that Everyone needed to conserve water so you needed to take smaller sips, all the while they either didn't stop guzzling it down, and/or, just hogged more water to a lesser degree?
That is in effect what the developed rich world is telling these developing countries. If you think the average first worlder is going to consume less unless forced to - and that force would come from Politicians, who, surprise!, want to get re-elected, which means, they kick those hard decision (read: unpopular) cans down the road everytime - you are simply crazy. We can just agree to disagree at this point.
If you start guzzling water just because other people are, you run out of water faster and die sooner.
Better than what the climate change believers would suggest: 1. Use smaller buckets that come from "renewable sources," ignoring how to fill them 2. Increase government funding for alternative liquids research 3. Impose a "water tax" to make people drink less 4. Ban SUVs since they have cup holders and thus might cause people to drink more water 5. Organize the desert dwellers to have a political march demanding people living next to a lake use less water
The answer is to leap frog past all the dirty levels first world countries had to use to get where they are and install clean , efficient systems infrastructure for third world economies.
Who pays for that again?
China, Brazil, and India have lots of cash and the US, Europe, and some East Asian countries have the technology plus some cash so it is more than possible.
I'm not asking you to take in more water than what you're sipping, I'm asking you now to take in less. Don't worry though, I'm way over-consuming full steam ahead. You're cool with that right?
The principal remains the same. Regardless of how much water others drink, I should drink the minimum amount necessary to stay sufficiently hydrated to conduct those activities that will be necessary to maximize my chance of survival.
Yea right. And the first guy to bring his own container and start stocking his own will will end up with a wife and 4 children while you sit there and pee brown.
Wait a second, are we changing the hypothetical to allow people to bring their own containers? Well, in that case, I would get my own bucket, pour my 1/6th share of the remaining water into it, and travel in a different direction than the other 5 members so that they won't try to steal my water when they drink theirs too quickly.
Meh, I would just shoot the other 5 and take theirs.
The principal remains the same. Regardless of how much water others drink, I should drink the minimum amount necessary to stay sufficiently hydrated to conduct those activities that will be necessary to maximize my chance of survival.
No, you're missing the point: The 5 people and you are already consuming at your individual x level. You are now all going to be at y, which is (x - something). This is not a scenario where you were just fine taking sips so you'll be fine at the new y value, this is a scenario where your wife and kids are suffering and dying, along with almost yourself, and these other 5 and their families are living high on the hog.
So No, the principle doesn't remain the same - you're already at as low of an amount you ever want to go. But, take heart! You get less, they get the same or more! Why? Because iToo!
Makes perfect sense right?
No, the principal is the same, you shouldn't only drink what you need. Assume "y" = the optimum amount of water each person should drink. You should drink "y" amount, regardless of what others do.
Yes, you obviously would not agree to a plan in which everyone reduces their consumption by "x," but anyone who sees that as the only option is a terrible negotiator. You would suggest alternatives, such as, everyone agrees to only drink "y", or everyone agrees to reduce their water intake by "x", without falling below "y", or even, "I'm tired of only drinking "y" while the rest of you guzzle water. Either reduce your intake by "x", or I'm going to start drinking like the rest of you and we'll run out of water tomorrow."
In terms of countries, the same applies. Yes, if the optimum CO2 omissions are "y", developing countries that already emit "y" aren't going to agree to reduce their omissions, but they might and should agree to avoid increasing them in exchange for reductions.
China is eating America's lunch right now. Cap and trade would give China a pitchfork so it can eat Amerca's lunch faster.
Thirty five thousand walruses have hauled out on Alaska's shores because the sea ice they rest on while feeding on clams in shallow distant article waters has disappeared.