The NYT had an article today on that big dilemma: if we want to slow global warming, we will have to do something about the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries like China and India. The article makes it all sound so difficult. These countries refuse to agree to limits, because they point out that on a per capita basis they emit much less than rich countries. And, it is emissions from rich countries over the last 200 years that are primarily responsible for the problem in the first place. This is all true. The part that the article never mentioned is the idea that rich countries can pay poor countries to restrict their emissions. This notion is poorly formulated as part of the Kyoto agreement with the "Clean Development Mechanism." However, it easy to design a more serious proposal. The basic point is very simple. Many of the cheapest ways to reduce emissions would come from changing the development path of countries like China and India. However, these countries will not endure this expense themselves, for obvious reasons. But, if we care about global warming, then we would pay them to reduce their emissions or at least slow the growth rate. Maybe we don't want to cough up the bucks and are just willing to live with global warming, but this is not an insoluable problem and the NYT should not present it as one.
--Dean Baker
