Kevin Osborne's Response, May 18th
After some investigation, I realized that the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is the world's largest international scheme for trading greenhouse gases emission allowances (Cap & Trade System). The ETS operates in 30 countries (27 EU member states). The goal is to reduce the number of allowances so that in 2020 emissions will be 21% lower than in 2005.
First, I want to comment that I believe Cap & Trade is a good first step, but I am against a Cap & Trade System as holistic solution for the following reasons:
Second, I did some additional research about the EU's aviation position:
The EU asserts that it seeks to incorporate aviation into its existing ETS to “show world leadership on climate change and to help meet an internal goal to reduce greenhouse gas levels by at least twenty percent compared with 1990.”
Treatment of the airlines ---
OPINION:
Long story short, I strongly support the intent to put a price on carbon. Aviation is a large contributor of carbon emissions in the transportation sector (does any one the exact figure). For instance, if you take carbon footprint test online and are a frequent traveler (thousands of miles traveled), your carbon footprint is much higher compared to others.
The key issue is that carbon targets in EU are not international, and aviation is a very international sector. EU has already required that all (domestic and international) carriers receive equal treatment. I believe that this is a good leadership role with the EU proposal. It will certainly increase travel costs to and from most of Europe, but I think it is needed to have clear price signals. However, I think that it will take a more global response to aviation's carbon emission in order for aviation to take call to action seriously and invest in 'GREEN' Research and Development to seek real alternatives on fuel.
Cited Sources:
http://www.condonlaw.com/attachments/ets_aviation.pdf
http://atwonline.com/international-aviation-regulation/news/faa-airlines-continue-attack-eu-ets-0504
First, I want to comment that I believe Cap & Trade is a good first step, but I am against a Cap & Trade System as holistic solution for the following reasons:
- Requires policing, nationally and internationally.
- Turning carbon emissions into commodities, it can remove the stigma from emitting carbon and result increasing emission (creating a good where non previously existed, resulting in purchasing of a said good).
- Volatility of energy prices (undermining prices signals for research+ development in renewables, etc.)
- Trading system is many cases does not reach the entire part of the transportation and service sectors that account for 30-50% of emissions.
Second, I did some additional research about the EU's aviation position:
The EU asserts that it seeks to incorporate aviation into its existing ETS to “show world leadership on climate change and to help meet an internal goal to reduce greenhouse gas levels by at least twenty percent compared with 1990.”
Treatment of the airlines ---
- (1) Airlines would be allocated a substantial number of free allowances;
- (2) At the end of each year, airlines would be required to surrender allowances matching in number to the
- carbon dioxide emissions released that year;
- (3) airlines would also be allowed to buy and sell allowances across all other sectors of industry subject to the EU ETS and would be permitted to use Kyoto Protocol allowances to meet EU ETS targets;
- (4) each aircraft operator would be responsible for monitoring and reporting its own carbon dioxide emissions; and
- (5) each airline would be responsible for verifying its reports through an independent reporter.
OPINION:
Long story short, I strongly support the intent to put a price on carbon. Aviation is a large contributor of carbon emissions in the transportation sector (does any one the exact figure). For instance, if you take carbon footprint test online and are a frequent traveler (thousands of miles traveled), your carbon footprint is much higher compared to others.
The key issue is that carbon targets in EU are not international, and aviation is a very international sector. EU has already required that all (domestic and international) carriers receive equal treatment. I believe that this is a good leadership role with the EU proposal. It will certainly increase travel costs to and from most of Europe, but I think it is needed to have clear price signals. However, I think that it will take a more global response to aviation's carbon emission in order for aviation to take call to action seriously and invest in 'GREEN' Research and Development to seek real alternatives on fuel.
Cited Sources:
http://www.condonlaw.com/attachments/ets_aviation.pdf
http://atwonline.com/international-aviation-regulation/news/faa-airlines-continue-attack-eu-ets-0504
Shi Xiangying's Response, May 19
先简短评论一下。我觉得中国应当争取更多的缓冲时间来适应这些政策,但是加入碳排放体系是不可避免的。
I think China should argue with EU to gain more time and more rights, but take a positive response to the EU policy. Although the carbon markets in different countries are developing in imbalance, the trend to accept carbon market is irreversible. They should develop their own carbon market to offset the carbon emission.
I think China should argue with EU to gain more time and more rights, but take a positive response to the EU policy. Although the carbon markets in different countries are developing in imbalance, the trend to accept carbon market is irreversible. They should develop their own carbon market to offset the carbon emission.
Ruanxi's Response, May 19
EU put China Airlines and other non-EU airlines in their ETS is kind of force action.
Because this series of policy is basically decree inner EU but not suitable to other countries and also unfair to others according to the basic WTO trading rule.
As China part,I think,our national airlines need to have a serious talk with EU and also need to out put some urgent policies against EU's decision.And may be we can find some way to make win-win statement,and at the same our national airlines also need to establish our own ETS or UN group can set a rule for all countries to obey and make every country fair.
Cited Sources:
:http://www.china.com.cn/economic/txt/2011-03/24/content_22208407.htm
Because this series of policy is basically decree inner EU but not suitable to other countries and also unfair to others according to the basic WTO trading rule.
As China part,I think,our national airlines need to have a serious talk with EU and also need to out put some urgent policies against EU's decision.And may be we can find some way to make win-win statement,and at the same our national airlines also need to establish our own ETS or UN group can set a rule for all countries to obey and make every country fair.
Cited Sources:
:http://www.china.com.cn/economic/txt/2011-03/24/content_22208407.htm
Kevin Osborne's Response, May 19
I just want to add my opinion for China. I think there is both some large pros and cons.
PROS:
From what I understand about China's agenda for sustainable development, I think that China's government is looking to become the next global clean tech leader. This could provide an incentive for the Chinese aviation industry to invest more in research and development (such as Alge) and pioneer a new path forward. However, this would need to be supported and policies would need to be created domestically to make this very viable.
CONS: China is a developing country. I assume the last thing they want is to put additional prices on consumer goods. Any price increase could create negative consumer reaction since they will be the onces charged with higher prices.
What do other people think?
PROS:
From what I understand about China's agenda for sustainable development, I think that China's government is looking to become the next global clean tech leader. This could provide an incentive for the Chinese aviation industry to invest more in research and development (such as Alge) and pioneer a new path forward. However, this would need to be supported and policies would need to be created domestically to make this very viable.
CONS: China is a developing country. I assume the last thing they want is to put additional prices on consumer goods. Any price increase could create negative consumer reaction since they will be the onces charged with higher prices.
What do other people think?
Ian Siadak's Response, May 19
Hello Everyone!
First of all, I apologize for having almost no ability to speak or read or write in Chinese, and I hope that someone can help translate some of this if it is not clear.
This is a very interesting topic, and I think the implication goes beyond just the aviation sector between China and the EU. I see this as the beginning of countries imposing tariffs on carbon intensive goods travelling in and out of countries that do have legally binding and relatively strict carbon policies. While I can see this approach as harmful to still-developing countries such as China, I believe this approach will become more common as we go longer and longer without an international binding treaty, and given the shrinking amount of time we have to seriously be proactive about climate change, I do support this approach.
That being said, in this particular situation there are two factors that need to be considered.
The first is that the United States is also fighting this rule in international courts, and I think that if the US is not participating in this scheme then China should not as well. Until the US is held to this new standard first, developing countries should not have to participate.
Secondly, China says that it should be exempt from this new rule because it is implementing its own plan to reduce aviation emissions by a similar amount in a similar time frame. I was not able to find specifics on what the domestic policies of China are for aviation other than "China has set a target, by 2020, to reduce carbon emissions for each unit of economic growth by 40to 45 percent from 2005 levels. As part of that move, the country's aviation regulator also asked all airline carriers to cut energy and carbon intensity by 22 percent during the same period." (but I did not look very hard). If someone knows more about the specifics of the domestic program, please let me know! If China has a domestic plan that will reach the same goal as the EU plan, then I do not think China should have to participate.
Finally, in response to Kevin's post, I agree that cap-and-trade schemes are not the way to go, for many of the same reasons he mentioned. However, I still support what the EU is trying to do, because they realize that if they are going to lead the way in carbon reduction policy for the whole planet, then they need some mechanism to hold other countries accountable. Hopefully, this move will allow the larger debate of multilateral (or unilateral as the US and China claim) climate policies to progress.
One last question, I am not sure if the EU is getting lots of extra money out of this rule if it goes into effect. Does anyone know about that? Is this a money grab or are they earnestly trying to reduce carbon output?
Sources:
http://euobserver.com/19/32316http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2011-05/18/content_12531564_2.htm
First of all, I apologize for having almost no ability to speak or read or write in Chinese, and I hope that someone can help translate some of this if it is not clear.
This is a very interesting topic, and I think the implication goes beyond just the aviation sector between China and the EU. I see this as the beginning of countries imposing tariffs on carbon intensive goods travelling in and out of countries that do have legally binding and relatively strict carbon policies. While I can see this approach as harmful to still-developing countries such as China, I believe this approach will become more common as we go longer and longer without an international binding treaty, and given the shrinking amount of time we have to seriously be proactive about climate change, I do support this approach.
That being said, in this particular situation there are two factors that need to be considered.
The first is that the United States is also fighting this rule in international courts, and I think that if the US is not participating in this scheme then China should not as well. Until the US is held to this new standard first, developing countries should not have to participate.
Secondly, China says that it should be exempt from this new rule because it is implementing its own plan to reduce aviation emissions by a similar amount in a similar time frame. I was not able to find specifics on what the domestic policies of China are for aviation other than "China has set a target, by 2020, to reduce carbon emissions for each unit of economic growth by 40to 45 percent from 2005 levels. As part of that move, the country's aviation regulator also asked all airline carriers to cut energy and carbon intensity by 22 percent during the same period." (but I did not look very hard). If someone knows more about the specifics of the domestic program, please let me know! If China has a domestic plan that will reach the same goal as the EU plan, then I do not think China should have to participate.
Finally, in response to Kevin's post, I agree that cap-and-trade schemes are not the way to go, for many of the same reasons he mentioned. However, I still support what the EU is trying to do, because they realize that if they are going to lead the way in carbon reduction policy for the whole planet, then they need some mechanism to hold other countries accountable. Hopefully, this move will allow the larger debate of multilateral (or unilateral as the US and China claim) climate policies to progress.
One last question, I am not sure if the EU is getting lots of extra money out of this rule if it goes into effect. Does anyone know about that? Is this a money grab or are they earnestly trying to reduce carbon output?
Sources:
http://euobserver.com/19/32316http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2011-05/18/content_12531564_2.htm
Jared Schy's Response, May 18
Response:
Don't know what happened to short responses at first (ahem, Kevin), but okay! Kevin took the words out of mouth. I'm inclined to say that debating the EU's position to tax Chinese planes because it has carbon markets is beside the point. That said, according to an article in the Guardian, the EU's Emission Trading Scheme could mean that in 2013, "carbon emissions could rise to a third higher than current levels, seriously undermining the attractiveness of investment in low-carbon technology."
As Kevin mentioned above, carbon-emissions trading schemes are not holistic solutions to climate change, especially when offsets are allowed. I will add additional thoughts with resources and so forth in my next response. I want to end with this with two quotes I've come across though because even amongst our group, I've often sense the belief that clean technology will fix everything. In my opinion: IT WILL NOT.
Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/10/eu-emissions-trading-savings
Quotations (如果你有意思。。。)
"Undoubtedly, climate change has been the straw breaking the camel’s back. A lot of people think of climate change as a technical problem, something that’s going to be fixed by technical solutions. But more and more people are starting to realize that it’s not going to be fixed except as a byproduct of a real shift in how the whole industrial system operates." --Peter Senge, MIT
"The point is that the way we live together now, the way we govern ourselves, the way we arrange our physical spaces and our commerce, the way we do economics and measure prosperity -- all these have to be changed in creative ways if we want to achieve the goal of sustainable prosperity. All these changes require ... wait for it ... innovation. Innovations in the way we think, interact, and structure our lives require just as much imagination, intelligence, persistence, and funding as innovations in technology." --David Roberts, www.grist.org
Don't know what happened to short responses at first (ahem, Kevin), but okay! Kevin took the words out of mouth. I'm inclined to say that debating the EU's position to tax Chinese planes because it has carbon markets is beside the point. That said, according to an article in the Guardian, the EU's Emission Trading Scheme could mean that in 2013, "carbon emissions could rise to a third higher than current levels, seriously undermining the attractiveness of investment in low-carbon technology."
As Kevin mentioned above, carbon-emissions trading schemes are not holistic solutions to climate change, especially when offsets are allowed. I will add additional thoughts with resources and so forth in my next response. I want to end with this with two quotes I've come across though because even amongst our group, I've often sense the belief that clean technology will fix everything. In my opinion: IT WILL NOT.
Source:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/10/eu-emissions-trading-savings
Quotations (如果你有意思。。。)
"Undoubtedly, climate change has been the straw breaking the camel’s back. A lot of people think of climate change as a technical problem, something that’s going to be fixed by technical solutions. But more and more people are starting to realize that it’s not going to be fixed except as a byproduct of a real shift in how the whole industrial system operates." --Peter Senge, MIT
"The point is that the way we live together now, the way we govern ourselves, the way we arrange our physical spaces and our commerce, the way we do economics and measure prosperity -- all these have to be changed in creative ways if we want to achieve the goal of sustainable prosperity. All these changes require ... wait for it ... innovation. Innovations in the way we think, interact, and structure our lives require just as much imagination, intelligence, persistence, and funding as innovations in technology." --David Roberts, www.grist.org
Marvin Nala's Response, May 20
My stance is against the carbon taxes upon aviation without the CBDR principle.
Reasons for me to object are:
1. It's just not fair. The CBDR principle is the crucial part of international climate regime. You cannot impose same standard on top developing countries and developed countries.
2. The tax is imposed on airlines instead of individuals or engines. It's easier to carry out the idea, but not fair for countries with less tech and financial resources than developed countries. The additional costs per units for airlines with not than efficient planes will be much higher if they wanna to upgrade their tech.
3. From my understanding, this is an action of so-called "environmental protectionism ". EU is showing their leadership, but in ways against the economic order and fundamental IR principles. Just like US in Iraq war, you cannot start that only because you believe you are doing the right, especially when it hurts the key interests of your ally.
I would like to say, BUNK is definitely going to the innovative financial sources. And actions on transportation is the easiest and most economic way for countries to tackle the issue. And for me, it will be more reasonable to:
1. impose the tax upon the technology, or say the engines. So it urges engine producers to have further R&D directly. And there can be grades of taxes for developed and developing countries.
2. put the tax based on international platform or multilateral agreements. The necessary existing of UNFCCC, although boring and kinda of waste of time, is to find a reasonable and practical way for a concerted action.
Lastly, I don't think it's good for this year's negotiation when we are looking forward to a closer position between G77/China and EU to save KP.
Sources:
1. http://www.ftchinaconfidential.com/CapitalIntensive/Transport/Airports/Features/BestOfChineseCommentators/article/20110407/bb6e4382-5f5b-11e0-a1e9-00144f2af8e8/China-hits-out-at-EU-airline-carbon-tax
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/08/airlines-reject-tax-global-warming
Reasons for me to object are:
1. It's just not fair. The CBDR principle is the crucial part of international climate regime. You cannot impose same standard on top developing countries and developed countries.
2. The tax is imposed on airlines instead of individuals or engines. It's easier to carry out the idea, but not fair for countries with less tech and financial resources than developed countries. The additional costs per units for airlines with not than efficient planes will be much higher if they wanna to upgrade their tech.
3. From my understanding, this is an action of so-called "environmental protectionism ". EU is showing their leadership, but in ways against the economic order and fundamental IR principles. Just like US in Iraq war, you cannot start that only because you believe you are doing the right, especially when it hurts the key interests of your ally.
I would like to say, BUNK is definitely going to the innovative financial sources. And actions on transportation is the easiest and most economic way for countries to tackle the issue. And for me, it will be more reasonable to:
1. impose the tax upon the technology, or say the engines. So it urges engine producers to have further R&D directly. And there can be grades of taxes for developed and developing countries.
2. put the tax based on international platform or multilateral agreements. The necessary existing of UNFCCC, although boring and kinda of waste of time, is to find a reasonable and practical way for a concerted action.
Lastly, I don't think it's good for this year's negotiation when we are looking forward to a closer position between G77/China and EU to save KP.
Sources:
1. http://www.ftchinaconfidential.com/CapitalIntensive/Transport/Airports/Features/BestOfChineseCommentators/article/20110407/bb6e4382-5f5b-11e0-a1e9-00144f2af8e8/China-hits-out-at-EU-airline-carbon-tax
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/08/airlines-reject-tax-global-warming
Summer Zhao, May 20
Ian thank you for offering us the insight that U.S. is also debating this issue in international courts. It is very helpful for us to look at this issue in different perspectives.
I agree with many of your opinions that EU should not simply impose its Emissions Trading System (ETS) on other countries that are not familiar with its operating scheme. The transparency issue, the fairness issue, and the lack of previous consensus all together make EU's action unjustifiable.
Besides, it is understandable that China is strongly against this action, as it will impose a negative effect on the airline businesses and other related industries. Also I found out that the American Airline is already losing $ 3.3 million a day (cnn), so from the economic standpoint, the countries would be reluctant to comply to the EU standards.
However, I agree with Kevin that this is going to become an inevitable trend that more international collaboration are required to cut carbon emissions. EU is taking a good leadership on achieving this goal and fighting climate change, but the approach may not be appropriate at this moment. A higher call from the international regimes can be initiated, another set of rules and standards just to cut emission internationally can be established, and a well-designed and fair system should be proposed. But I actually in some degree appreciate EU for taking this bold choice as by doing so, many transaction costs associated with the international negotiation are eliminated.
Just to add another note, as we all know, one of the decisions COP16 made was to create a Green Climate Fund. It was expected that this Fund would raise $100 billion every year by 2020 to finance climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. One of the proposed sources of the funding is from "emission allowances or direct taxes; taxes on international transportation fuels" (Sierra et al). So we can see EU is actually heading towards that direction, but whether it will use the tax for this cause or for its own benefit is not clear yet.
Sources:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1105_climate_financing_dervis_sierra.aspx
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/28/magazines/fortune/gimbel_american.fortune/
I agree with many of your opinions that EU should not simply impose its Emissions Trading System (ETS) on other countries that are not familiar with its operating scheme. The transparency issue, the fairness issue, and the lack of previous consensus all together make EU's action unjustifiable.
Besides, it is understandable that China is strongly against this action, as it will impose a negative effect on the airline businesses and other related industries. Also I found out that the American Airline is already losing $ 3.3 million a day (cnn), so from the economic standpoint, the countries would be reluctant to comply to the EU standards.
However, I agree with Kevin that this is going to become an inevitable trend that more international collaboration are required to cut carbon emissions. EU is taking a good leadership on achieving this goal and fighting climate change, but the approach may not be appropriate at this moment. A higher call from the international regimes can be initiated, another set of rules and standards just to cut emission internationally can be established, and a well-designed and fair system should be proposed. But I actually in some degree appreciate EU for taking this bold choice as by doing so, many transaction costs associated with the international negotiation are eliminated.
Just to add another note, as we all know, one of the decisions COP16 made was to create a Green Climate Fund. It was expected that this Fund would raise $100 billion every year by 2020 to finance climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. One of the proposed sources of the funding is from "emission allowances or direct taxes; taxes on international transportation fuels" (Sierra et al). So we can see EU is actually heading towards that direction, but whether it will use the tax for this cause or for its own benefit is not clear yet.
Sources:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1105_climate_financing_dervis_sierra.aspx
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/28/magazines/fortune/gimbel_american.fortune/
Chen Yingao's Response, May 22
航协具体表明了对欧盟ETS的质疑,指出其不合理之处在于:
其一,非直接减排手段,没有对节能减排产生直接和实际的效果,而是单方面建立的一种以节能减排名义实施的迂回的具有金融性质的制度设计,将阻碍、抑制广大发展中国家航空运输业的发展。
其二,没有对发展中国家的航空运输业发展需要作出合理的安排,违背了国际社会在气候变化领域普遍遵循的“共同但有区别的责任”原则。
其三,违背了《芝加哥公约》和国际民航组织对航空减排的基本立场。
其四,实施范围超越了欧盟的管辖权,违反了惯例国际法,并触犯了国家主权。
其五,实施对象颠倒,没有首先针对飞机及发动机的制造商,减排没有直接从源头抓起。
补充以下个人观点:
1)只要当中国的碳排放技术落后于其他国家,以任何关税、交易为由的绿色壁垒、金融制裁就随时可以发生,毕竟制定这些政策有一定的合理合法性,这对于中国而言始终是一种危机。
2)根据国际贸易公约,如果中国在国内对其航空排放收取一定额度的碳税,则在进入欧盟不需要重复收取这部分费用,当然要发展中国家首先对自己采取这些措施,是没有正义性的,也不符合共同但有区别的责任,中国的这种转嫁提前收取倒不失为一种方式。但不应在航空领域优先开展,中国以煤炭为主的工业结构急需改变,在国内对这些领域的严格管理和结构调整才是当务之急,也符合全球的利益。
3)国际的贸易谈判,向来无法进行单边主义制裁,尤其当涉及中国这个巨大的发展中国家,即便是贸易政策也不外乎特殊的调整,双方的僵持不下并不利于积极妥善的改善这个问题的解决。对于碳排放的实质,这是一种看似强硬进步,实则原地不动的徒劳做法。
其一,非直接减排手段,没有对节能减排产生直接和实际的效果,而是单方面建立的一种以节能减排名义实施的迂回的具有金融性质的制度设计,将阻碍、抑制广大发展中国家航空运输业的发展。
其二,没有对发展中国家的航空运输业发展需要作出合理的安排,违背了国际社会在气候变化领域普遍遵循的“共同但有区别的责任”原则。
其三,违背了《芝加哥公约》和国际民航组织对航空减排的基本立场。
其四,实施范围超越了欧盟的管辖权,违反了惯例国际法,并触犯了国家主权。
其五,实施对象颠倒,没有首先针对飞机及发动机的制造商,减排没有直接从源头抓起。
补充以下个人观点:
1)只要当中国的碳排放技术落后于其他国家,以任何关税、交易为由的绿色壁垒、金融制裁就随时可以发生,毕竟制定这些政策有一定的合理合法性,这对于中国而言始终是一种危机。
2)根据国际贸易公约,如果中国在国内对其航空排放收取一定额度的碳税,则在进入欧盟不需要重复收取这部分费用,当然要发展中国家首先对自己采取这些措施,是没有正义性的,也不符合共同但有区别的责任,中国的这种转嫁提前收取倒不失为一种方式。但不应在航空领域优先开展,中国以煤炭为主的工业结构急需改变,在国内对这些领域的严格管理和结构调整才是当务之急,也符合全球的利益。
3)国际的贸易谈判,向来无法进行单边主义制裁,尤其当涉及中国这个巨大的发展中国家,即便是贸易政策也不外乎特殊的调整,双方的僵持不下并不利于积极妥善的改善这个问题的解决。对于碳排放的实质,这是一种看似强硬进步,实则原地不动的徒劳做法。
Jared Schy's Response, May 26
ey All,
I’m sorry it’s taken me a really long time to get this out. I guess for me it is hard just to choose a stance and back it up with a few skimmed articles of research. I believe that the issue at hand is significantly more complex than our debate lets on, particularly when you include questions about justice and equity. As one of my good friends says about most "solutions" to climate change, the devil is in the details (meaning, the idea may sound good and logical, but when you look at the details, it's actually really bad).
For me, I have heard from a long time from most of my radical friends, but also many in the climate movement that Cap-and-Trade is bad. I wanted to know why. So I’ve spent the past few days or so, first, gathering resources, then reading. I found a lot of stuff—not all of it that I am convinced by—that has given me a lot of new insights into how and why Cap-and-Trade should probably never be pursued as a policy to limit carbon emissions. That said, the reality is that our world—paradoxically—is pursuing it, in what often seems like a “this is the only/best kind of solution” kind of way.
Fundamentally, being heavily involved in grassroots work in the United States, my perspective is that the most important climate organizing needs to be done in our own home. Among many communities on the front lines (people who are directly impacted from fossil fuels) and many of my friends, we commonly speak about the obvious need for the mainstream environmental movement to link its resources with the strategies of those in the grassroots, particularly those fighting dirty energy in impacted communities, those currently experiencing environmental injustice. The reason for this is because in general, those organizers are having success against dirty energy—where as on a national, or state scale even, scale, climate organizers are not. So I guess why I feel challenged to respond to this debate is because fundamentally, I completely disagree with the premise that carbon trading, or international climate treaties are at all going to be the solution to climate change. At best, they will be but one of MANY strategies, at worst—which I fear they already are—they will reproduce the hierarchies that currently exist, fail to foment the international societal transformation we need, and leave us completely screwed as a species. So below is why I disagree with Emissions Trading Schemes fundamentally. As for the issue of whether China should have to pay for the regulation, I agree with Nala in saying against the principle of carbon taxes for aviation without the common-but-distributed-responsibilities principle fairly in place. But that doesn't get us any closer to solving climate change, does it? Gah! This issue sure is complex, not to make it a whole bunch more...
Fundamentally, the way emissions trading schemes have been set up, they are a)generally making it profitable for polluters to pollute, and b)not reducing emissions. Because to date, in every trading scheme that has been tried—especially in the EU ETS, too many permits have been allocated. Moreover, the permits are given out for free (instead of auctioned) and the companies who have historically polluted the most have been awarded the largest numbers of permits. Does that make sense to anyone?
On more fundamental levels, emissions trading schemes have to make you question the efficacy of using them in the first place. Why do corporations get priority ownership over the sky, which is certainly my and your resource as much as it is anyone elses’. Moreover, because governmentsare the ones who a)determine the number of permits and b)determine who gets them, how are people without access to our governments able to have their views represented? In nearly every case, their interests are not, and they remain in the positions they have always been, that is, at the bottom of society, stepped on and trampled by everyone as always.
I think this quote from the article I read the most of captures an interesting argument about justice and Global North and South countries,
“The recent Western fashion for distancing responsibility for climate change, both spatially and temporally, by attributing it to future car-hungry Chinese or Indians, is a diversion possible only under the assumption – shared by elites in North and South alike – that a society that mandates over-consumption is the universal human destiny." (Gilbertson and Reyes, Carbon Trading, how it works and why it fails, p.8)
I guess part of my concern for this issue of justice stems from the fact that beyond creating a society that does not destroy the environment, climate change is an opportunity to transformsociety into one that is just, prosperous, and sustainable for all. “For all” means that everyone who has been historically oppressed by is lifted up by this new society. Implicitly, that also means those who have historically at the top, must fall down.
We also must examine the efficacy of carbon offsets. The inclusion of offsets should be of particular interest to the Chinese members of this team, seeing as the other component of them, Carbon Development Mechanisms, seems to quite positively viewed in China (I am assuming this, considering Beida has a “CDM Club”). I am willing to posit that CDMs in many ways, don’t do anything to take us off the course of catastrophic climate change.
If a company is polluting in the US, it can buy “offset” permits to, in effect, nullify the effects of its pollution. “Offset” is defined as: “an amount that diminishes or balances the effect of a contrary one.” That’s exactly what offsets do: create a net balance of carbon saved versus carbon emitted.
Lets think through the logic of this. Polluters in the US pay money so they can continue to polluteand actually increase their pollution because buying an “offset” was a way to avoid reducing their own pollutions, which they would have had to do otherwise. Then to “offset” this additional carbon, they invest in a project that supposedly will produce less carbon equal to the amount that the US polluter is now additionally polluting.
What is 2+(-2)?
Zero.
That means the total emissions reduced are actually ZERO given that the combined increase and decrease actually cancel each other out. As one of the articles I read parts of states,
“Even if an emissions ‘reduction’ sold by an offset project developer could be verified as successful, any gain would by definition be nullified by increased emissions allowed to the buyer, delaying the transition to a post-fossil fuel economy elsewhere” (Gilberston & Reyes, 54).
Also, one other piece of evidence that really makes a strong case against CDM projects,
“As of September 2009, three-quarters of the offset credits issued were manufactured by large firms making minor technical adjustments at a few industrial installations to eliminate hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and nitrous oxide (N2O). By the end of 2012, HFC and N2O credits are still expected to account for the largest shares of the CDM (28.5 per cent and 14.4 per cent respectively), followed by hydro-electricity projects (10.8 per cent). Solar power is expected to account for 0.03 per cent of CDM credits by 2012” (Gilbertson and Reyes, 55).
I'm sorry this is so long and really don't expect anyone to read it all, but I felt it was important to contribute as well.
Primary sources:
Gilberston, Tamara. and Reyes, 2009. Carbon Trading: How it works and why it fails. Critical Currents. No. 7.
Secondary Sources:
Park, Angela. 2009. Everybody's Movement. Environmental Support Center. Washington D.C.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/06/04/cap-trade-is-not-a-market-solution/
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/09/10/report-eu-ets-could-increase-carbon-emissions/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/10/eu-emissions-trading-savings
http://www.johnkay.com/2006/05/09/why-the-key-to-carbon-trading-is-to-keep-it-simple
http://www.google.com/books?hl=zh CN&lr=&id=r4HBlgoc8T8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=LEIGH+RAYMOND,+PRIVATE+RIGHTS+IN+PUBLIC+RESOURCES:+EQUITY+AND+PROPERTY+ALLOCATION+IN+MARKET-BASED+ENVIRONMENTAL+POLICY&ots=c5-WE7nznp&sig=tK6FRa3UH1TmCSDJG78hQMFjUW0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com.hk/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=The+Overallocation+Problemin+Cap-and-Trade%3A+Moving+Toward+Stringency%E2%80%99%2C
Angle, Paul M. 1984. Brookline and the making of an elite suburb. Chicago history. No. 13. 36-49.
I’m sorry it’s taken me a really long time to get this out. I guess for me it is hard just to choose a stance and back it up with a few skimmed articles of research. I believe that the issue at hand is significantly more complex than our debate lets on, particularly when you include questions about justice and equity. As one of my good friends says about most "solutions" to climate change, the devil is in the details (meaning, the idea may sound good and logical, but when you look at the details, it's actually really bad).
For me, I have heard from a long time from most of my radical friends, but also many in the climate movement that Cap-and-Trade is bad. I wanted to know why. So I’ve spent the past few days or so, first, gathering resources, then reading. I found a lot of stuff—not all of it that I am convinced by—that has given me a lot of new insights into how and why Cap-and-Trade should probably never be pursued as a policy to limit carbon emissions. That said, the reality is that our world—paradoxically—is pursuing it, in what often seems like a “this is the only/best kind of solution” kind of way.
Fundamentally, being heavily involved in grassroots work in the United States, my perspective is that the most important climate organizing needs to be done in our own home. Among many communities on the front lines (people who are directly impacted from fossil fuels) and many of my friends, we commonly speak about the obvious need for the mainstream environmental movement to link its resources with the strategies of those in the grassroots, particularly those fighting dirty energy in impacted communities, those currently experiencing environmental injustice. The reason for this is because in general, those organizers are having success against dirty energy—where as on a national, or state scale even, scale, climate organizers are not. So I guess why I feel challenged to respond to this debate is because fundamentally, I completely disagree with the premise that carbon trading, or international climate treaties are at all going to be the solution to climate change. At best, they will be but one of MANY strategies, at worst—which I fear they already are—they will reproduce the hierarchies that currently exist, fail to foment the international societal transformation we need, and leave us completely screwed as a species. So below is why I disagree with Emissions Trading Schemes fundamentally. As for the issue of whether China should have to pay for the regulation, I agree with Nala in saying against the principle of carbon taxes for aviation without the common-but-distributed-responsibilities principle fairly in place. But that doesn't get us any closer to solving climate change, does it? Gah! This issue sure is complex, not to make it a whole bunch more...
Fundamentally, the way emissions trading schemes have been set up, they are a)generally making it profitable for polluters to pollute, and b)not reducing emissions. Because to date, in every trading scheme that has been tried—especially in the EU ETS, too many permits have been allocated. Moreover, the permits are given out for free (instead of auctioned) and the companies who have historically polluted the most have been awarded the largest numbers of permits. Does that make sense to anyone?
On more fundamental levels, emissions trading schemes have to make you question the efficacy of using them in the first place. Why do corporations get priority ownership over the sky, which is certainly my and your resource as much as it is anyone elses’. Moreover, because governmentsare the ones who a)determine the number of permits and b)determine who gets them, how are people without access to our governments able to have their views represented? In nearly every case, their interests are not, and they remain in the positions they have always been, that is, at the bottom of society, stepped on and trampled by everyone as always.
I think this quote from the article I read the most of captures an interesting argument about justice and Global North and South countries,
“The recent Western fashion for distancing responsibility for climate change, both spatially and temporally, by attributing it to future car-hungry Chinese or Indians, is a diversion possible only under the assumption – shared by elites in North and South alike – that a society that mandates over-consumption is the universal human destiny." (Gilbertson and Reyes, Carbon Trading, how it works and why it fails, p.8)
I guess part of my concern for this issue of justice stems from the fact that beyond creating a society that does not destroy the environment, climate change is an opportunity to transformsociety into one that is just, prosperous, and sustainable for all. “For all” means that everyone who has been historically oppressed by is lifted up by this new society. Implicitly, that also means those who have historically at the top, must fall down.
We also must examine the efficacy of carbon offsets. The inclusion of offsets should be of particular interest to the Chinese members of this team, seeing as the other component of them, Carbon Development Mechanisms, seems to quite positively viewed in China (I am assuming this, considering Beida has a “CDM Club”). I am willing to posit that CDMs in many ways, don’t do anything to take us off the course of catastrophic climate change.
If a company is polluting in the US, it can buy “offset” permits to, in effect, nullify the effects of its pollution. “Offset” is defined as: “an amount that diminishes or balances the effect of a contrary one.” That’s exactly what offsets do: create a net balance of carbon saved versus carbon emitted.
Lets think through the logic of this. Polluters in the US pay money so they can continue to polluteand actually increase their pollution because buying an “offset” was a way to avoid reducing their own pollutions, which they would have had to do otherwise. Then to “offset” this additional carbon, they invest in a project that supposedly will produce less carbon equal to the amount that the US polluter is now additionally polluting.
What is 2+(-2)?
Zero.
That means the total emissions reduced are actually ZERO given that the combined increase and decrease actually cancel each other out. As one of the articles I read parts of states,
“Even if an emissions ‘reduction’ sold by an offset project developer could be verified as successful, any gain would by definition be nullified by increased emissions allowed to the buyer, delaying the transition to a post-fossil fuel economy elsewhere” (Gilberston & Reyes, 54).
Also, one other piece of evidence that really makes a strong case against CDM projects,
“As of September 2009, three-quarters of the offset credits issued were manufactured by large firms making minor technical adjustments at a few industrial installations to eliminate hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and nitrous oxide (N2O). By the end of 2012, HFC and N2O credits are still expected to account for the largest shares of the CDM (28.5 per cent and 14.4 per cent respectively), followed by hydro-electricity projects (10.8 per cent). Solar power is expected to account for 0.03 per cent of CDM credits by 2012” (Gilbertson and Reyes, 55).
I'm sorry this is so long and really don't expect anyone to read it all, but I felt it was important to contribute as well.
Primary sources:
Gilberston, Tamara. and Reyes, 2009. Carbon Trading: How it works and why it fails. Critical Currents. No. 7.
Secondary Sources:
Park, Angela. 2009. Everybody's Movement. Environmental Support Center. Washington D.C.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/06/04/cap-trade-is-not-a-market-solution/
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/09/10/report-eu-ets-could-increase-carbon-emissions/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/10/eu-emissions-trading-savings
http://www.johnkay.com/2006/05/09/why-the-key-to-carbon-trading-is-to-keep-it-simple
http://www.google.com/books?hl=zh CN&lr=&id=r4HBlgoc8T8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=LEIGH+RAYMOND,+PRIVATE+RIGHTS+IN+PUBLIC+RESOURCES:+EQUITY+AND+PROPERTY+ALLOCATION+IN+MARKET-BASED+ENVIRONMENTAL+POLICY&ots=c5-WE7nznp&sig=tK6FRa3UH1TmCSDJG78hQMFjUW0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com.hk/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=The+Overallocation+Problemin+Cap-and-Trade%3A+Moving+Toward+Stringency%E2%80%99%2C
Angle, Paul M. 1984. Brookline and the making of an elite suburb. Chicago history. No. 13. 36-49.