作业帮求二氧化碳的绿色排放发达国家和发展中国家哪个负担多一些的英语作文
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：作业帮 分类：英语作业 时间：2024/05/29 02:26:18
求二氧化碳的绿色排放发达国家和发展中国家哪个负担多一些的英语作文
Global warming is the result of the massive emission of C02 and other greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels throughout the industrial revolution, beginning in the 19th century. In attempting to address and solve global warming, many have asked whether developed nations - which led the industrial revolution and are responsible for most of the greenhouse gases now in the atmosphere - should bear a greater responsibility for combating climate change. This debate has been stimulated in large part by the Kyoto Protocol, which exempted developing nations such as China and India, from the same emissions-reductions obligations as developed countries. The principle underlying Kyoto is known as "common but differentiated responsibilities", which continues as a centerpiece principle for those calling on Developed countries to assume a greater responsibility. China, India, and other developing countries call for recognition of this principle, while many developed countries argue that conditions have changed as developing countries have begun to industrialize and pollute more rapidly in recent years.
There are many questions involved in this public debate. Are industrialized nations to blame for emitting massive quantities of green house gases into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution? Does it matter that they were unaware of the consequences of their emissions and global warming throughout most of the industrial revolution? Does this make them less culpable and thus less obligated to resolve the crisis? Can global warming be effectively combated if developing nations are considered "less" responsible for fighting it? Should large developing countries such as China and India be held to a lower standard than larger developed nations? What would this mean for fighting global warming? Should all nations be expected to contribute as much as they are able to contribute, which would mean that some developing countries would contribute less but not necessarily because they are less obligated? Should the predecessor of the Kyoto Protocol be based on the conclusion of this debate - holding all nations to the same standard or holding developed and developing nations to different standards? What is most fair? What is best for planet Earth? Overall, should developed countries be more obligated to combat global warming?
1
In a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a group of researchers and scientists show that the gains that have been made in stabilizing CO2 emissions in developed or "rich" countries since the signing of the Kyoto agreement, have been neutralized by the increase in CO2 emissions from developing nations as they produce goods for trade, primarily to developed countries. Because of this disparity, many groups are calling for a change to the Kyoto agreement practice of only counting CO2 emissions that are produced in-country, rather than the CO2 footprint of those products that are consumed.
This is not the first time this argument has been heard, environmental groups, politicians and others have been speaking out about the apparent discrepancy for several years; what’s new is that the paper is backed up by a study of international CO2 emissions worldwide; in other words, by hard data.
In the paper, lead author Glen Peters, senior research fellow with Cicero (a research group), and his colleagues, describe their findings in a study they conducted whereby 113 countries and 57 economic sectors were examined and analyzed, for the period 1990 to 2008; they found that CO2 emissions from the production of traded goods and services had increased from 4.2 gigatonnes per year to 7.9, or from 20% of global emissions to 26%, resulting in net emission transfers to developed countries of 0.4 gigatonnes in 1990, to 1.6 in 2008.
Meanwhile, during this period, developed nations have been able to claim collective reductions of almost 2%. Thus, the authors have shown that as developed countries (other than the U.S. which has neither signed the Kyoto treaty, nor stabilized its CO2 emissions) stabilize emissions created in their own countries, they instead use products produced in other countries that were made using processes that continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere and who haven’t, for the most part, signed the Kyoto treaty.
Because of this situation, rich nations are able to claim gains, while poor countries are criticized for releasing ever more carbon into the atmosphere, which many see as unfair.
So now that the facts have been presented, there is little left to do but argue about whether developed nations should be held accountable for the carbon emissions that were released in making the products they now consume, or whether those developing nations that are the ones actually releasing the carbon should remain solely responsible. As with many political arguments, the whole situation appears to boil down to a matter of simple semantics; because when all is said and done, what really matters is that carbon emissions worldwide be reduced, regardless of who gets the credit.
2
If you want to know how much carbon dioxide Americans emit into the atmosphere, it's not enough to look just at the gases that pour from our smokestacks and tailpipes. We also import goods that were made in factories that produced carbon dioxide. In fact, a new study finds that worldwide, about a quarter of emissions are actually the result of imported and exported goods and services.
Take China, for example. A few years ago, China overtook the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, but Steve Davis of the Carnegie Institution for Science says, "Nearly a quarter of the emissions that are produced in China are ultimately exported to consumers elsewhere."
The United States consumes a lot of those carbon-intensive exported goods. So we are in some ways responsible for those emissions. It's still the case that most of the U.S. carbon emissions come from burning coal and oil and natural gas.
But if you add our imports and subtract our exports, the study shows our carbon footprint is about 11 percent bigger than our official emissions numbers suggest. Imports make up an even bigger fraction of Europe's emissions.
"It was pretty surprising to see that between a third and a half of all the emissions related to goods consumed in European countries actually occur outside of their borders," Davis says.
The People Who Reap The Benefits
Some of that is trade within Europe — like French drivers buying BMWs from Germany. But Europe, too, buys a lot of goods from China's heavily polluting industries.
This new analysis, based on 2004 data, is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Davis' colleague Ken Caldeira co-authored the study.
"Ethicists have made the case for a long time that if some process pollutes, then the people who are reaping the benefit of that process have some obligation to clean up the mess," says Davis. "So if you believe that argument, our results are showing that developed countries that are benefiting from these goods that are made elsewhere have an obligation to lead the global effort to reduce CO2 emissions."
EnlargeSteven Davis/Carnegie Institution for Science
This map shows global emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from the import and export of goods. The arrows indicate direction and magnitude of flow, and the numbers are the millions of tons of carbon.
In fact, China and India made that argument vociferously at the climate talks in Copenhagen. Besides, Davis says, the results highlight a huge loophole in the global response to carbon emissions.
"If the U.S. or Europe restricts carbon emissions but consumers can just import goods from countries where there are no restrictions, then emissions are likely to grow in those other countries, which will undermine any benefit to the climate."
A Consumer Solution?
The take-home message for former climate negotiator Nigel Purvis is that as nations like the United States come to grips with climate change, we need to think beyond the emissions within our borders.
"We also need to look at what consumers can do," says Purvis. "They're part of the problem, and they can be part of the solution. In order to engage consumers, we need to make sure they, too, face a price signal, and that they, too, are educated about the effects of their behavior on the climate."
Purvis runs a small policy shop called Climate Advisers. He says that if the world puts a price on carbon, that should be reflected in the cost of all goods that are produced with energy that emits carbon. That ultimately means expanding trade rules — and possibly instituting taxes or tariffs — to include climate costs.
"The trade and climate agendas definitely need to be integrated and mutually supportive," Purvis says. "We need to make sure that what we're doing to protect the climate is contributing to economic growth, but we also need to make sure that international trade is compatible with our climate protection goals."
And he says that's not really happening right now.
There are many questions involved in this public debate. Are industrialized nations to blame for emitting massive quantities of green house gases into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution? Does it matter that they were unaware of the consequences of their emissions and global warming throughout most of the industrial revolution? Does this make them less culpable and thus less obligated to resolve the crisis? Can global warming be effectively combated if developing nations are considered "less" responsible for fighting it? Should large developing countries such as China and India be held to a lower standard than larger developed nations? What would this mean for fighting global warming? Should all nations be expected to contribute as much as they are able to contribute, which would mean that some developing countries would contribute less but not necessarily because they are less obligated? Should the predecessor of the Kyoto Protocol be based on the conclusion of this debate - holding all nations to the same standard or holding developed and developing nations to different standards? What is most fair? What is best for planet Earth? Overall, should developed countries be more obligated to combat global warming?
1
In a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a group of researchers and scientists show that the gains that have been made in stabilizing CO2 emissions in developed or "rich" countries since the signing of the Kyoto agreement, have been neutralized by the increase in CO2 emissions from developing nations as they produce goods for trade, primarily to developed countries. Because of this disparity, many groups are calling for a change to the Kyoto agreement practice of only counting CO2 emissions that are produced in-country, rather than the CO2 footprint of those products that are consumed.
This is not the first time this argument has been heard, environmental groups, politicians and others have been speaking out about the apparent discrepancy for several years; what’s new is that the paper is backed up by a study of international CO2 emissions worldwide; in other words, by hard data.
In the paper, lead author Glen Peters, senior research fellow with Cicero (a research group), and his colleagues, describe their findings in a study they conducted whereby 113 countries and 57 economic sectors were examined and analyzed, for the period 1990 to 2008; they found that CO2 emissions from the production of traded goods and services had increased from 4.2 gigatonnes per year to 7.9, or from 20% of global emissions to 26%, resulting in net emission transfers to developed countries of 0.4 gigatonnes in 1990, to 1.6 in 2008.
Meanwhile, during this period, developed nations have been able to claim collective reductions of almost 2%. Thus, the authors have shown that as developed countries (other than the U.S. which has neither signed the Kyoto treaty, nor stabilized its CO2 emissions) stabilize emissions created in their own countries, they instead use products produced in other countries that were made using processes that continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere and who haven’t, for the most part, signed the Kyoto treaty.
Because of this situation, rich nations are able to claim gains, while poor countries are criticized for releasing ever more carbon into the atmosphere, which many see as unfair.
So now that the facts have been presented, there is little left to do but argue about whether developed nations should be held accountable for the carbon emissions that were released in making the products they now consume, or whether those developing nations that are the ones actually releasing the carbon should remain solely responsible. As with many political arguments, the whole situation appears to boil down to a matter of simple semantics; because when all is said and done, what really matters is that carbon emissions worldwide be reduced, regardless of who gets the credit.
2
If you want to know how much carbon dioxide Americans emit into the atmosphere, it's not enough to look just at the gases that pour from our smokestacks and tailpipes. We also import goods that were made in factories that produced carbon dioxide. In fact, a new study finds that worldwide, about a quarter of emissions are actually the result of imported and exported goods and services.
Take China, for example. A few years ago, China overtook the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, but Steve Davis of the Carnegie Institution for Science says, "Nearly a quarter of the emissions that are produced in China are ultimately exported to consumers elsewhere."
The United States consumes a lot of those carbon-intensive exported goods. So we are in some ways responsible for those emissions. It's still the case that most of the U.S. carbon emissions come from burning coal and oil and natural gas.
But if you add our imports and subtract our exports, the study shows our carbon footprint is about 11 percent bigger than our official emissions numbers suggest. Imports make up an even bigger fraction of Europe's emissions.
"It was pretty surprising to see that between a third and a half of all the emissions related to goods consumed in European countries actually occur outside of their borders," Davis says.
The People Who Reap The Benefits
Some of that is trade within Europe — like French drivers buying BMWs from Germany. But Europe, too, buys a lot of goods from China's heavily polluting industries.
This new analysis, based on 2004 data, is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Davis' colleague Ken Caldeira co-authored the study.
"Ethicists have made the case for a long time that if some process pollutes, then the people who are reaping the benefit of that process have some obligation to clean up the mess," says Davis. "So if you believe that argument, our results are showing that developed countries that are benefiting from these goods that are made elsewhere have an obligation to lead the global effort to reduce CO2 emissions."
EnlargeSteven Davis/Carnegie Institution for Science
This map shows global emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from the import and export of goods. The arrows indicate direction and magnitude of flow, and the numbers are the millions of tons of carbon.
In fact, China and India made that argument vociferously at the climate talks in Copenhagen. Besides, Davis says, the results highlight a huge loophole in the global response to carbon emissions.
"If the U.S. or Europe restricts carbon emissions but consumers can just import goods from countries where there are no restrictions, then emissions are likely to grow in those other countries, which will undermine any benefit to the climate."
A Consumer Solution?
The take-home message for former climate negotiator Nigel Purvis is that as nations like the United States come to grips with climate change, we need to think beyond the emissions within our borders.
"We also need to look at what consumers can do," says Purvis. "They're part of the problem, and they can be part of the solution. In order to engage consumers, we need to make sure they, too, face a price signal, and that they, too, are educated about the effects of their behavior on the climate."
Purvis runs a small policy shop called Climate Advisers. He says that if the world puts a price on carbon, that should be reflected in the cost of all goods that are produced with energy that emits carbon. That ultimately means expanding trade rules — and possibly instituting taxes or tariffs — to include climate costs.
"The trade and climate agendas definitely need to be integrated and mutually supportive," Purvis says. "We need to make sure that what we're doing to protect the climate is contributing to economic growth, but we also need to make sure that international trade is compatible with our climate protection goals."
And he says that's not really happening right now.