Is carbon trading obscene? Kevin Smith of Carbon Trade Watch thinks so
Growing faster than smoke from a tall brick chimney at a busy factory, carbon trading (which includes carbon offsetting, something we write about here on AutoblogGreen a lot) has become a verifiable trend with news out every other day it seems about journalists or bands who want to invest in wind energy over there so they can burn petrol over here. Just click on the "Carbon Offset" category link over to the right and you'll see what I mean. Carbon offsetting your CO2 emissions is popular because it's easy. Well, not as easy as not doing anything at all, but a lot easier than, say, converting your entire production plant to run off of hydrogen and methane from food waste. Plus, it's good publicity. Just click on the "Carbon Offset" category link again, and you'll see what I mean.
But is carbon trading a good idea? Kevin Smith, a researcher with Carbon Trade Watch, emphatically says "No" in this BBC column. While making a lot of good points – strong government regulation on CO2 issues is needed, emissions have to be reduced across the board – Smith quotes Tom Burke, visiting professor at Imperial College London, who said that using cost-benefit analysis on climate change is "junk economics," and Smith calls loopholes in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme "obscene." Smith is right. Like ethanol, carbon trading should be a bridge, something we can do now while we figure out what to do tomorrow. Smith's criticism of carbon trading is well placed, but not doing anything would be truly obscene.
[Source: BBC / Kevin Smith]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
James 8:47AM (11/17/2006)
Kevin is a moron who is more involved in that the doesn't like the IDEA of carbon trading, but hasn't a clue as to its results. A perfect example of this was polution credits used in the late 80's to reduce sulfur emissions. They worked, emissions went down. Then Clinton replaced them with regulation and government cost went up and emission levels went up.
Are we so blind that we will rage against an idea without even giving it due consideration? It's this knee-jerk reationism that lets the dumbest among us lead us. Sure carbon trading doesn't sound good, but hopefully the rest of us are willing to learn before we react. Hopefully we give environmental causes the consideration they are due, not simply react.
Reply
MikeW 1:54PM (11/20/2006)
When is Mt. St Helens due to erupt again?
Reply
queensgal 5:50PM (5/10/2007)
Although I am for anything that is going to help in reducing GHGs, I feel that the EU trading scheme needs A LOT of work. I think Kevin Smith makes valid points as to why carbon trading won't work. The cap & trade system that took place in the US during the 80's was successful because there were few sources that had to be monitored vs. global industries. The federal government mandated that industries releasing sulfure reduced the amount of emissions. The Kyoto Protocol is only mandatory for those countries that have ratified it...the number one emitter of GHGs, the U.S., has not ratified the protocol...
Reply