Unlike the U.S., the European Union has been steady in its commitment to tackling the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. However, commitment at the macro-level has not necessarily trickled down to the micro level of individual EU member states. Indeed, in the final phase of the Kyoto Accord (2008 -2012), nine out of the 10 member states that submitted proposals for capping carbon emissions were found to be far too generous to their local industries. The UN-backed Emissions Trading Program offers another escape hatch from fulfilling lofty goals. Under the Program, businesses in wealthier nations can finance pollution reduction in poorer countries in lieu of reducing their own domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Not surprisingly, China has been the recipient of the bulk of these foreign clean-up deals. So, although greenhouse gas emissions will not necessarily be reduced in Europe under the Emissions Trading Program, greenhouse gas emissions could be lowered in China where so much of the world’s manufacturing takes place. Emissions Trading has become big business; there is even a stock exchange-like operation for trading in “the right to pollute” (buying and selling carbon units). Is this wrong?
What about emissions trading within a country; i.e., where Company A in Springfield, IL can lower its carbon emissions beneath its pollution allowance and so sells carbon units to Company B in Detroit, MI, which has exhausted its pollution allowance. Is that OK? Putting aside the plight of the people living near company B in Detroit, is it unethical for Company A to seek financial gain rather than letting those who live in the vicinity of its plant have cleaner air?
In my opinion, it is very unethical.
When rules / regulations are made that may hamper the progress of a wealthier Nation, escape routes has to be prepared.
They lower GHG emissions in poor countries where emissions are not on the higher side. They limit the industrial progress in poor countries.
Emission trading is the actual face of the world when it comes to protect Environment and enforce equality.
Muhammad, did you mean to say that emissions trading "reinforces INEQUALITY" by providing an escape route for wealthier nations? If so, I have to agree that emissions trading allows the MNCs of wealthier nations to avoid lowering their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions at home by purportedly "doing good" abroad. The "magnanimous" act of constructing so-called "green" factories abroad diverts attention from the fact that these MNCs are in these offshore locales in the first place solely for the purpose of lowering production costs by exploiting the low-cost labor force that is generally available in these offshore locations.
Thank you, Muhammad, for tackling this question which I feared was "dead in the water" since I posted it a long time ago and until today have only gotten a collection of "views" with not one single attempt to respond to the question, which admittedly is controversial.
Gwen
Dear Gwendolyn.
If your question has not come with part of the answer, I'd say it was the best question I read in these five weeks that I am part of Reseachgate.
.
Congratulations for the question!
.
I would say that the whole mechanism of carbon trading is beyond immoral, is evil and worst of all, is an enormous discrimination over the third world. I would say it that there is even a racist component throughout the implementation of the same logic.
.
Apart from all the frauds that are made and are reported in the international press. The most vicious is that for a big transnational, keep the air conditioner running in their central offices, the areas of the third world should turn into "environmental conservation parks" to the delight "people well born".
.
If carbon trading mechanisms serve to keep industrial jobs of workers in developed countries, would still have some degree of justice. Meanwhile these jobs are transferred a reduction of social and environmental costs to third world countries giving these wages around 10% of the countries of origin. That is, while blocking the development of certain areas transfers to the generation of carbon, and much more serious pollutants for other countries.
.
The regulation of the carbon market is weak and lenient. Are eliminated natural biomes or withdraw populations who traditionally live in remote areas to monoculture reforestation. (there are several reported cases).
.
That is perhaps the carbon market, nor good intentions one can take.
An example of replacing native species for monoculture tree plantations project on indigenous and peasant communities.
.
http://wrm.org.uy/oldsite/countries/Ecuador/face.pdf
.
There are dozens these examples.
Oh, Rogerio, thank you so much for the link to the Patricia Granada article. What is occurring is shocking and disgraceful. Granada succinctly sums up the crux of this evil injustice in the following paragraph of her article:
"In addition to the biosphere's carbon absorption capacity being appropriated as private property, the fundamental causes of the climate change phenomenon are forgotten and knowledge is confused with speculation regarding the carbon exchanges that take place between the atmosphere and the Earth's vegetation, that soils and vegetation can be managed in such a way as to increase their sequestering and fixation of carbon and thus make them into terrestrial carbon sinks."
Well, Rogerio, I am going to do my part by making this article required reading when I deal with environmental issues in my Business Ethics courses; I need for my students to become as outraged as I am about this abominable situation so that they can go out and change the world.
With immense gratitude,
Gwen
John, thank you for interjecting this well-rounded perspective and for giving such detailed attention to issues that need to be considered, but are not immediately obvious to a layperson like myself. There are never quick and easy answers to these types of moral dilemmas so it is very beneficial that you have shared your considerable specialist knowledge as a pollution control engineer. I anticipated that you would have something important to say on this subject and you have not disappointed me. As I have said previously, John, you rock!
Gwen
Thank you for this input, Ahed. And, I assume you meant to state that "ethics are against ECONOMIC interest" whereas law is not. Since I have just received a succinct treatise on the fact that laws generally support economic interest from Charles Herrman, I am going to ask him to comment on your astute observation in terms of this environmental issue. (We should here from him shortly.)
Gwen
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology