Poor Nations Issue 'Save Kyoto Protocol' Plea in Lead-Up to Copenhagen

Ben Bernanke has just been named "Person of the Year" for saving the global economy from utter ruin by avaricious fat cats and their minions on Wall Street. When is someone going to be recognized for saving the Earth from greed-mongering economic powerbrokers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians?

My vote goes to Yvo De Boer for "Person of the Year", even though everyone realizes he will likely fail to save the planet because Father Profit seems to regularly triumph over Mother Nature. After all, greed rules and rules absolutely in our time, does it not?

There is a VERY easy way out of this. One that solves the CO2 emission issue, while not killing the economies.
Have every nation TAX ALL GOOD based on the CO2 that comes from the regional area (that is how much CO2 from a region sq km) were the item was made, where the PRIMARY sub-component was made, and the distance from the final item assemblage to the point of retail. The reason is that right now Kyoto has proven that it will NOT WORK. The reason is that all nations will cheat. That cheating is what will destroy this. In addition, there is a VERY real CO2 cost in making good further and further away. Ideal, the above would be calculate a percentage of a top rate, of which the base rate is raised with time.
For example (Assume America initially charges a top rate of 5%):

1. 
   Assume that a good comes from Canada, and the good was made 100% in Canada. Canada has LOW emissions per sq km. This is easily verified by all via sat. The sats will show how much CO2 in, and how much CO2 out. In addition, Canada is next door (i.e. very little distance between the countries), so the distance is not an issue. They may have say 10% of the 5% (i.e. .5%) charged against them. If they drop their CO2, then the rate of 10% will drop lower.
   
2. Assume that a good comes 100% from America and is sold in America. Distance is a none issue. However, we have medium emissions / sq km. As such, we might charge our own goods 50% of the 5% (i.e. 2.5%).
   
3. Assume something comes from China. In 2006, they had emission only slightly larger than America, along with a similar land mass, but the distance is much greater. As such, if America charged itself 50%, then CHina would likely get 50% (based on emissions per sq km) COMBINED with the distance which might pump that up to say 75% of the 5% (i.e. 3.75%). I do note that China in 2007 had ~10%, and almost certainly about the same in 2008. As such, it is probable that CHina would in 2009 be at 100% of the tax rate.
   

Now, what advantage is there is this?

1. It prevents cheating. Like at the Kyoto nations. ALL have been working hard to point the finger at every other nation EXCEPT themselves. That is normal. These are all politicians. Nobody wants to gut their economy. We ALL KNOW that if apply some of the costs to only one or two nations, than their economy will be destroyed. Worse, you KNOW that businesses will simply leave the more efficient places, to move to less efficient ones. This prevents that. There is ZERO incentives to do that.
   
2. It rewards nations that have lower CO2 AND keep them there. Typically, nations will increase in CO2 emissions as they do better. THAT means that if a nation takes the steps to lower their emissions, it will reward them.
   
3. It takes into account the fact that nearly all underdeveloped nations have low CO2 emissions.
   
4. It will be harsher on countries that continue to increase their emissions.
   
5. This is EASILY verified via sats. In addition, it ties it to a nations size, not something like population which is easily manipulated.
   
6. Most importantly, this takes into account ALL CO2 emissions. If somebody adds forest in their area, that takes up CO2. That means that they will show lower emissions. This approach helps those nations that want to stop raiding their rain forests, but have economic incentives to continue doing so. If they burn forests, it emits more CO2. Likewise, if they build Coal plants, add cars, etc, they will emit more. NONE OF THE OTHER APPROACHES DO THIS.
   
7. This approach does not kill the local or the global economy. The reason is that it starts low and is slowly, but surely, increased. The ONLY way it will hurt an economy, is if that nations chooses to ignore this issue and keeps increasing their CO2 emissions. Then they are committing economic suicide, or killing their exports.
   
8. FInally, it applies it to ALL NATIONS AND ALL BUSINESSES EQUALLY. That prevents businesses from simply moving and importing their goods to escape things.
   

Ideally, each nation would take out a chunk of the tax (say 10%) and apply it to a fund to help that nations that really need it. I am not talking China (a rich nation by nearly every honest measure). I am talking Peru, Columbia, Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, etc. I am talking POOR NATIONS. These nations will need help to survive this. More importantly, some of that money should be used to help them move off Fossil Fuel to AE/Nukes.

Skip Copenhagen and have the western nations, followed by other nations adopt this approach. It will bring along ALL NATIONS.

Please, give President Barack Obama a reason for going to Copenhagen next month so that he has a chance to make the difference that makes a difference. Action is needed now. Support the objectives of the Copenhagen Climate Conference before it is too late for even these great, leading-edge human beings with feet of clay to guide the children away from the patently unsustainable lifestyles of the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us and toward sustainable ways of living in the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit as stewards, I suppose.