Credit Where Credit Is Due

[talktooloose]

This morning, the CBC morning show had an enthusiastic piece by their business commentator beaming about pollution credits. For those of you who don't know what this means, it refers to countries or cities or other companies buying and selling the right to pollute under guidelines. If, for instance, the pollution guideline (Kyoto, for instance) says each of two cities can emit 100 units of greenhouse gases, and City A only emits 80 units, City B can buy the unused 20 and emit 120 units!

This notion is unreservedly disgusting. The underlying idea of any pollution limits is obviously that less is better. If City A finds a way to come in under its targests, City B should be there taking notes on how it too can beat its targets and thus SAVE THE FUCKING WORLD!

The commentator's take was that a developing nation's ability to sell pollution credits might be the only thing that would get it to even try and comply. Of course, underlying this is the idea that all nations should try for the good of the world. But then how can he feel good about more pollution in Canada? It's a cynical exercise when Kyoto, even if it were ratified, would still fall far short of real targets needed to slow down climate change.

I phoned in the following message to the show's "vox box" (note, the "sponsorship scandal" refers to the discovery that millions of dollars in federal money went to friends of Liberal party with very little oversight under the watch of previous Prime Minister, Jean Chretien. This is the major reason the Liberal's have a minority gov't since the last election) :

I was astonished by the enthusiasm Michael Hlinka found for the perverse notion of Canadians buying pollution credit from developing countries, and the way he justified increased industrial pollution through some odd notion of a Kyoto balancing sheet. Putting aside the fact that the Kyoto targets are already recognized as too modest, does he really expect Canadians to be comfortable abdicating a leadership role in environmental responsibility? When a poorer nation takes active steps to lower pollution, is our cynical response that we can then open the sluices and pour more poison into the air and water?

But maybe I'm being too hasty. If Mr. Hlinka is correct that this is the only way to make progress on environmental protection, then I suggest we apply the model to other social problems as well. How about corruption credits? If a country that has always been a one-party police state makes the move to democracy, can we buy their unused corruption and have a legal sponsorship scandal? Or if there is a great international and local effort to help a million refugees in an African nation find homes and begin new lives, can we in Canada then cut back further on federal programs to help the homeless or further delay the building of new subsidized housing units in Toronto? Hey, Michael, sounds like a win-win situation to me!

Comments

[redrunner.livejournal.com]

I like your comment, and your point. I have to say I disagree, though. The main question will be: how many pollution credits will we allow, and will they decrease over the years? Once we've set adequate targets (which, in itself, requires an ethical choice that people might skimp on, ugh) then the buying and selling of credits provides a good way to measure a resource (in this case, clean air) whose value we have a hard time estimating financially. If we feel like being a capitalist society, yet environmental degredation isn't at all felt by the markets, how are we ever going to change? This provides a means. I agree, it's flawed, but it's worked before where everything else has failed... or am I being horribly naive?

[snowmit.livejournal.com]

A while back I read about an interesting charity that had sprung up in the US. What they do is buy pollution credits and then TAKE THEM OFF THE MARKET. The consequence is that over time, the cost of polluting will go up which will hopefully encourage companies to reduce pollution.

[redrunner.livejournal.com]

Now THAT is awesome.

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

Awesome but kind of sad. Imagine if that money could actually be used for something more positive than patching holes in bad environmental laws.

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

Ick. It's a sliding scale. First we negotiate as little actual climate change mitigation as possible into the treaties. Then we refuse to sign them, or if we do then we fudge the schedule for compliance. Then, in the true spirit of things, we kick our feet until we're given ways to maximize our pollution. And it's all too little, too late.

You change the language around from "emissions credits" to "clean air credits" but you can't really do that. They have different intents and intent is everything here. I love the idea of "clear air credits". If you pollute less as a country, you should get some awesome benefit. Free downloads of unknown Radiohead songs, for instance.

Degredation should be felt by markets. Let's start by actually having reasonable emissions standards and then enforcing them. How many polluters are actually dinged for their excessive emissions? And how about extra tax on products with too much packaging?

I don't know if you are being naive. Has it worked before? Where?

[redrunner.livejournal.com]

It has, I think in some parts of the 'States. My memory of that part of my Environment and Society class is very, very shaky though :)

Also, apparently part of Kyoto involves emissions trading.

[a-trick-mind.livejournal.com]

Virtue is tough to buy, though there are lots of examples in history where virtue has been up for sale.

[talktooloose.livejournal.com]

Leave my Aunt Gloria out of this!