Any assessment that treats a whole country as one evaluation entity is obviously nonsense, because it ignores the difference between rich and poor within that country.
And forced reductions are forced, obviously. So how do you assess the "equity" of using aggressive violence to force some people to sacrifice their lives, so other people can feel good about a problem they aren't willing to *voluntarily* sacrifice the slightest luxury to resolve - like Climate Realist, tapping away on his computer - all made with fossil fuels and rare earths?
How do you assess this? Well, you start by pointing out that it's factually false. You start by noting that the alarmists themselves admit that it's not about global warming, they admit it's about forced redistributions, they admit that that they lied.
You start by noting that the "science" is not replicable because the "scientists" hide the decline, and falsify their data, and reverse the signs, and won't release their data, and won't release their algorithms.
You start by noting that all the arguments for it are unsupported by actual temperature data; and consist of nothing but endlessly repeating their assumptions, endlessly appealing to absent authorities to share their assumptions and manipulate the models to get what predetermined results they want.
You start by noting that the whole thing is a government-funded industry, and that ALL the scientists predictions turned out wrong.
You start by noting that, even if the climatology were correct, they have no basis for assuming that warming would be detrimental rather than beneficial.
You start by noting that they have no way of calculating the relevant human evaluations in the status quo versus the policy counterfactual; and that this one fact REFUTES THEIR ENTIRE ARGUMENT.
You then conclude that no violence-based response can be ethically justified, and therefore since all policy is violence based, *real* equity concerns rule out any policy response whatsoever. Real equity concerns dictate that the warmists should be named and shamed for promoting policies that have killed, and are killing millions of people in the third world to pay for their own comfortable first-world lifestyles and pious hypocrisy.
That's how you assess the equity concerns.
I would challenge the assumption that poorer countries are being disadvantaged more than richer ones by CO2 reductions.
What are the poorer countries losing? They are not cutting their emissions either.
Even if we suppose that the alarmists are right and that sea level rises will be enormous, the richer countries still face bigger problems. The poor will just rebuild their tin shacks further inland. How would the US move New York, for instance?
The poor are most effected by global warming, even though they contributed to it the least.
Raisin Caine
I thought that skeptics hated Kyoto because it exempted poor countries from making emission reductions.
Climate realist is right, the poor are certainly most affected by the idea of global warming. The greenpeace people and other environmentalists are trying to stop 3rd world nations from having the power they need to pull themselves out fo squalor. Since they don't have as much money, they are easier targets for environmentalists.
As far as your question. Countries are sovereign. They may do as they wish. When the UN and others try to force countries to act in a certain way, they are ignoring the sovereignty of the country. If a country want to move towards energy that produces less CO2 emissions, that is their business.
What we should be doing now is making alternative energy more affordable and show how reducing reusing and recycling can be cost-efficient. The goal of the environuts, however, has been to make "dirty" energy more costly. I think this is immoral. Many people are starving and dying. They need cheap energy.
The claims made about global warming have been extremely exaggerated. They are lying to us to starve people and want to pretend they are good fighting evil.
how would you assess the equity concerns (for example between rich and poor countries) related to reductions in CO2 gas emissions
