Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
EU Carbon Trading Scheme Failing to Curb Emissions from Big Polluters
BRUSSELS - Europe's big polluters pumped more climate-changing gases into the atmosphere in 2006 than during the previous year, according to figures that show the EU's carbon trading system failing to deliver curbs.
Critics said the data underlined the gap between the rhetoric of European leaders, who have promised to cut C02 emissions by one-fifth by 2020, and the reality of delivering reductions.
Yesterday's figures relate to the carbon produced in 22 nations by big industrial users that accounted for almost 93 per cent of emissions reported in 2005. The European Commission said that carbon output from these sources rose between 1-1.5 per cent in 2006 over the previous year. The statistics suggest the EU is still allocating too many carbon permits to enable the system to work properly.
The point of the trading scheme is to use the market to curb pollution by making firms buy extra credits if they emit too much CO2. But that discipline only applies if the cost of buying the right to pollute acts as a genuine incentive.
In 2005 the European Commission allowed member states to produce 3 per cent more C02 than they needed. In 2006, the difference between the ceiling and the emissions was closer to 1 per cent. That gap has closed partly because the amount of carbon produced rose. Only Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Britain gave businesses too few permits in 2006.
Barbara Helfferich, environment spokeswoman for the European Commission, said the scheme will prove effective during its second phase of life from 2008-12. She said: "There will be investment into more effective technologies and those companies that move earlier will have advantages."
But Chris Davies, environment spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament, said: "Getting the emissions trading system up and running has been a major achievement but without the proper caps we simply don't have an increase in carbon prices to bring an incentive to boost investment. Its future depends on ensuring the cap is tight but at the moment it is more like a sieve than a barrier".
Mahi Sideridou, EU climate policy director for Greenpeace, said: "The system is pointless if it doesn't deliver reductions. It is like Monopoly for emissions."
© 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
5 Comments so far
Show AllCarbon trading is parlor games for coddled capital. Instead of that, put the total costs of each product in its consumer price. The costs of climate change and petro-wars are factored into the price of the petro-widget. The cost of land is factored into the price of the bio-widget. Total prices enlightens the people. Total prices puts market demand to work extracting production efficiencies. Total prices forces the consumer to do without whatever is too damned expensive. Let common sense prevail in the markets by giving the truth and the responsibility to the people. Voila, the carbon-sequestering trees will rise and the carbon-spewing fossils will sink. Yank the coddled beast out of the parlor and throw into the harness where it belongs!
yea cos the market'll fix EVERYTHING. I've lost faith in the Canadian government to get any real work done on this issue.
that goes for the Brit parliament too.
The whole idea of trading pollution rights is morally, functionally and economically bankrupt.
Trading "credits" typically first assigns rights to pollute at current levels to the worst polluters in the world-- thus rewarding them with a prize of economic value for damaging the planet and humanity's health. Obviously, anything rewarded is encouraged and perpetuated through basic behavior mod mechanisms.
But, the insidious thing about it becomes clear when you ask who is selling these rights? The supply of pollution rights comes precisely from everyone who breathes polluted air giving up their right to breathe clean air. Actually, they don't voluntary give up that right-- they're sold out by their representatives in government who pocket the money for their own pet projects without any thought of compensating the people whose health and livelihood are damaged by the pollution.
Any program that gives government a source of revenue leads to government dependence on that source of revenue and, hence, bureaucratic perpetuation of the source. So, the net effect is to make pollution a permanent fixture of our government.
Instead, government should tax all fossil fuels at their "triple bottom line" costs. It has been calculated that the total cost of a gallon of gas is US$5 to US$15 when you factor in the negative health effects of pollution, and other social costs. To tax gasoline, therefore, any less than $2 to $12 per gallon is to subsidize pollution.
Since we only tax gasolinea fraction of that amount, we are, in effect subsidizing petrol as an energy source and making it artificially competitive against alternative energy sources that actually have lower total costs, but aren't subsidized, so they never win in the marketplace.
Green taxes-- obviously-- are the answer. The alert reader may ask, "How is that not creating a government dependence/perpetuation of petrol power?" Because all of the revenue goes to cover the real social costs in a flow-thru model, the government makes no "profit" (the tax is not higher than the actual social costs) so the incentive to perpetuate the problem is removed.
Bravo, rtdrury, 7:57 pm and clarkkent as well.
The solution is both obvious and consistant with the efficient operation of a free market: require that the consumer pay the full, unsubsidized cost of a good or service.
To repeat clarkkent in this context: "It has been calculated that the total cost of a gallon of gas is US$5 to US$15 when you factor in the negative health effects of pollution, and other social costs."