This post at Triple Pundit notes that a study of the largest carbon market, the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism, finds that most of the carbon offset money is being sent to coal and oil companies and that "much of the market does not reflect actual reductions in emissions."
This is why a world offset market - as opposed to a local offset market - is a really bad idea. And why we shouldn't be giving carbon emissions credits away for free.
Critiquing the rationality of public policy, ruminating on modern life,
and exposing my inner nerd.
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Why carbon "offsets" aren't the answer to global warming
David Morris of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance writes on the increasing interest in carbon offsets - essentially paying someone else to reduce carbon emissions that you generate. In examining the role of other pollution-reduction techniques and the results of some of the early carbon trading schemes, Morris concludes that:
I think a smaller-scale cap and trade (e.g. local offsets) could prove very effective, but only if the policy is set at a national scale and it sets stringent carbon reductions (no generous baselines, please).
- Buying carbon offsets is like buying indulgences for sins - it just makes people feel good. In particular, the monitoring of offset programs is so lax there's no way to know if emissions are truly offset
- A global carbon offset market discourages people from taking responsibility for the local impacts of their behavior. Local offsets, on the other hand, mean that polluters have to do something in their community to improve their climate impact.
- A cap and trade market seems very capitalist and efficient, but evidence shows that good old regulation or a carbon tax could reduce climate change emissions far faster than a market mechanism. (Note: the much heralded success of the US-based sulfur dioxide cap and trade market owes much to the cost estimates of the polluters that proved to be massively inflated.)
I think a smaller-scale cap and trade (e.g. local offsets) could prove very effective, but only if the policy is set at a national scale and it sets stringent carbon reductions (no generous baselines, please).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)