Home Hubdub logo
 
Net worth: H$1,000
Guest:Cash: hd$1,000   Predictions: hd$0
You currently have hd$1,000 (Hubdub dollars), Hubdub's virtual currency, to stake on your predictions. Your predictions are currently worth hd$0
Home
Leaderboards
Forums
PoliticsSportEntertainmentWorldBusinessTechnologyScienceGeneral

Will the Harvard proposal of allowing developing countries to maintain carbon emissions be adopted?

Current forecast: 67% chance
Combining all predictions, the current forecast is that this is 67% likely to happen (unchanged in last 1 day)

Rich nations should make the first cuts in greenhouse gases while developing countries carry on business as usual for the time being, according to a plan set out on Monday by a Harvard University project.

This is one of four proposals by the American university's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs to negotiators who meet for U.N. climate talks next week in Poland.

The current climate pact, the Kyoto Protocol, expires in 2012 and governments are scrambling to agree a new treaty by the end of next year.

"The new agreement should be scientifically sound, economically rational and politically pragmatic," Professor Robert Stavins of the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements said.

The Harvard report calls on rich nations to lead in cutting emissions, while developing countries can "maintain their business-as-usual emissions in the first decades, but over the longer term agree to binding targets that ultimately reduce emissions below business as usual."

Read full story here.


Settlement details: As reported by a major mainstream news source. The relevant issue that needs to be adopted is proposal 1 Proposal No. 1:
"One proposed framework argues that a new international climate agreement should establish a global cap-and-trade system, where the emissions caps are determined using a set of formulas. These formulas take into account a variety of economic factors, including GDP and economic growth rates, such that a country's annual cap may change over time, rather than being set as an absolute quantity of emissions for the duration of the agreement. The result, it is hoped, is that every country will feel it is only doing its fair share."
If no news by suspend date, question will settle as no.

 
Forecast history, %
   Zoom in

Make your prediction!

Yes
67%
No
33%
Activity: H$825
Question suspends in 46 weeks

Suspend date: Wed 25th Nov 11:59pm PST (46 weeks to go)

Initial likelihoods: Yes: 70%

Action history:

Created Mon 24th Nov 2008 7:31pm PST by tisha[Admin]

Suspend date: Wed 25th Nov 11:59pm PST (46 weeks to go)
more info...

 

Predictions (7)

7 predictions

6 days ago
horsefeathers predicted No (H$20 at 33%)
2 weeks ago
notablenotices[Power User] predicted No (H$5 at 33%)
2 weeks ago
kruijs[Power User] predicted No (H$300 at 32%)
6 weeks ago
raidersin09 predicted No (H$100 at 32%)
6 weeks ago
jenniandboys[Admin] predicted No (H$250 at 31%)
more

Comments (6)

With a disastrously faltering global economy, it doesn't seem likely that developed nations will agree to emissions caps that slow or prevent economic recovery. Further, letting third world countries go on with fewer (or no) restrictions would be like rubbing salt in the wound. This is an excellent question, but current realities dictate that the answer will be NO.
posted 6 weeks ago
u mean developed nations like the US....and the US actually reducing carbon emissions? and since the USA is the greatest carbon emitter..why doesnt the UN just tell the USA u have 3 years...enuf is enuf? But instead they will deciede aobut poor countries...
am i the only one disturbed by this?
I mean how many hummers are the people in developing nations driving anyway?
posted 2 weeks ago
No, you are not the only one disturbed by the out-of-control enviro-fascist movement
posted 2 weeks ago
No kidding - you have thugs, criminals, terrorists, and comunists agreeing about one thing - the world is going to end in 10 years, 9 years, 8 years, 7 years, 6 years, well some time in the future, unless we can tax the rich people & then it might be ok.
posted 2 weeks ago
  5 dieseldog
UN = Fum Duckers. i don't want them telling me what to do. :O)
posted 2 weeks ago
  6 kruijs[Power User]
the funny thing is: it's china since '07
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2272661220070323

but that doesn't matter as long as there still are people who just close their eyes.
and as long as the rich are actually responsible for the world to end, and as long as the rich are actually the only ones which can effort to make a change, then I think to tax the rich people (although nobody ever proposed that) is not the worst idea.

the cheapest way for the industry to produce is without taking care of the environment at all.
here a few impressions: http://images.google.ch/images?q=environmental%20pollution
regardless of such global and hard to imagine effects like climate change - do you want to have such a neighborhood? or would you rather prefer these
http://images.google.ch/images?q=usa+landscape
posted 2 weeks ago

Please log in or join to add a comment

What is Hubdub?

Hubdub makes news more exciting by letting you stake virtual dollars on the outcomes of real running news stories.

Join now   or   learn more