From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

12.07.2015 Views

5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM CLIMATE CHANGEobligations to make – or pay for – carbon cuts are based on pastresponsibility for emissions and current capacity to pay, while guaranteeingthe right to development of poor countries. In contrast withother approaches, it takes intra-national inequality (of income andemissions) into account by exempting the income and emissions ofpeople who fall below a minimal ‘global middle class’ thresholdof about $9,000 per capita. It argues that rich countries bear responsibilityfor current climate change and so should pay for the lion’s shareof global adaptation and mitigation efforts, allowing developingcountries to focus on poverty reduction and development. 226However the burden is shared, reversing centuries of rising carbonemissions will not be an easy task. How can governments, companies,and individuals ensure that emissions peak, and then fall, within thenext ten years? This question lies at the heart of the increasingly urgentdebates on how to respond to climate change. The three main optionsuse traditional tools of government policy:Standards: Governments could reach global and/or national agreementssetting emission standards for different industries, and agree aregime to enforce these rules. Examples include quality standards onvehicle emissions or legal requirements that new housing be carbonneutral.Subsidies: Rich-country governments could subsidise carbon reductionefforts – for example research into new technologies in fields such asrenewable energy or carbon capture – or they could support companiesor individuals producing or adopting existing low-carbon equipment.All countries should also end perverse subsidies that actually encouragefossil fuel use. Rich countries collectively subsidise domestic fossil fuelproduction and consumption in the range of $10bn–$57bn each yearin tax breaks and direct support. If redirected, this could financedeveloping-country adaptation. 227Taxes: By ensuring that the true cost of carbon emissions is reflectedin the prices paid by consumers, governments can create a systemwideincentive for low-carbon solutions and encourage innovation tomeet this new demand. A tax on carbon emissions could curb greenhousegases and at the same time raise funds for adaptation or other purposes.Taxes on air travel are increasingly justified as carbon taxes.However, although simpler to implement, taxes will not necessarily413

FROM POVERTY TO POWERreduce the quantity of emissions, which is the critical factor in combatingglobal warming.Another approach that has gained great momentum combinesstandards and taxes to use price pressures to drive down carbon usevia a regional,national,or global market for carbon emissions reductions.Modelled on US efforts to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions under theClean Air Act, carbon trading allows companies to buy and sell‘carbon permits’ so that those who find it easiest to reduce emissionsdo so, and make a profit by selling the resulting carbon savings toother companies who find it harder to cut their carbon footprint.While individual governments have used all of the aboveapproaches to reducing emissions, carbon trading has been adoptedas a central tool for driving the global response, and it is evolvingquickly. In 2006, international carbon markets turned over around$30bn (1.6bn tonnes of carbon emissions, or CO 2e 228 ) and volumeswere expected to double in 2007. 229 The largest markets are theEuropean Union’s Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which wasworth $24bn in 2006 (1bn tonnes of CO 2e) and the Kyoto Protocol’sClean Development Mechanism (CDM), worth $5bn (520m tonnes).The remaining carbon markets – incipient domestic markets inAustralia, Japan, Canada, and the USA – form a tiny fraction of totalvolumes. 230 Unlike the EU scheme or the CDM, these are not tied tothe Kyoto commitments. There is also a small but growing voluntarymarket in offsets ($100m/20m tonnes of CO 2ein 2006).The two main types of carbon trading that make up today’s marketsare emissions trading and offset trading. In the former, also known as‘cap and trade’, the government sets a ceiling (or cap) on emissionsfrom a particular economic sector and a schedule for lowering thatceiling over time. Companies in that sector are allocated a tradeablepermit (or allowance) for their emissions, and must pay a fine if theiremissions exceed that amount. Companies that find it cheaper toreduce their emissions can do so and sell their permits to other, dirtier,companies. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is an early example ofthis kind of carbon market.Trading in carbon offsets involves reducing emissions from projectsoutside of an economy that has an established mandatory cap onemissions. For example, by funding an energy efficiency project in a414

FROM POVERTY TO POWERreduce the quantity of emissions, which is the critical fac<strong>to</strong>r in combatingglobal warming.Another approach that has gained great momentum combinesstandards and taxes <strong>to</strong> use price pressures <strong>to</strong> drive down carbon usevia a regional,national,or global market for carbon emissions reductions.Modelled on US efforts <strong>to</strong> reduce sulphur dioxide emissions under theClean Air Act, carbon trading allows companies <strong>to</strong> buy and sell‘carbon permits’ so that those who find it easiest <strong>to</strong> reduce emissionsdo so, and make a profit by selling the resulting carbon savings <strong>to</strong>other companies who find it harder <strong>to</strong> cut their carbon footprint.While individual governments have used all of the aboveapproaches <strong>to</strong> reducing emissions, carbon trading has been adoptedas a central <strong>to</strong>ol for driving the global response, and it is evolvingquickly. In 2006, international carbon markets turned over around$30bn (1.6bn <strong>to</strong>nnes of carbon emissions, or CO 2e 228 ) and volumeswere expected <strong>to</strong> double in 2007. 229 The largest markets are theEuropean Union’s Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which wasworth $24bn in 2006 (1bn <strong>to</strong>nnes of CO 2e) and the Kyo<strong>to</strong> Pro<strong>to</strong>col’sClean Development Mechanism (CDM), worth $5bn (520m <strong>to</strong>nnes).The remaining carbon markets – incipient domestic markets inAustralia, Japan, Canada, and the USA – form a tiny fraction of <strong>to</strong>talvolumes. 230 Unlike the EU scheme or the CDM, these are not tied <strong>to</strong>the Kyo<strong>to</strong> commitments. There is also a small but growing voluntarymarket in offsets ($100m/20m <strong>to</strong>nnes of CO 2ein 2006).The two main types of carbon trading that make up <strong>to</strong>day’s marketsare emissions trading and offset trading. In the former, also known as‘cap and trade’, the government sets a ceiling (or cap) on emissionsfrom a particular economic sec<strong>to</strong>r and a schedule for lowering thatceiling over time. Companies in that sec<strong>to</strong>r are allocated a tradeablepermit (or allowance) for their emissions, and must pay a fine if theiremissions exceed that amount. Companies that find it cheaper <strong>to</strong>reduce their emissions can do so and sell their permits <strong>to</strong> other, dirtier,companies. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is an early example ofthis kind of carbon market.Trading in carbon offsets involves reducing emissions from projectsoutside of an economy that has an established manda<strong>to</strong>ry cap onemissions. For example, by funding an energy efficiency project in a414

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!