[Cc-webedit] [Fwd: Re: [networking] G20 Flyer Feedback + websites]

[james holland]

i think we should add the text of the carbon trading factsheet to 
http://climatecamp.org.uk/g20-why or perhaps somewhere else on the site?





What is carbon trading?
Don't leave it to the market - leave it in the ground!

Carbon trading is the main way in which wealthy industrialized countries
and companies are avoiding their emissions reduction targets – by
trading carbon credits amongst themselves, either between countries (as
happens under the Kyoto Protocol) or between companies (as happens under
the EU Emissions Trading Scheme). Essentially, it’s the way that
industry can continue as usual, while encouraging the poor and
disadvantaged to sell their rights to pollute.

This fact sheet is primarily for climate activists and independent
journalists. We hope will also provide the basis for discussions,
sloganeering & media work.

Carbon trading is aimed at the wrong goal
Carbon trading is aimed at the wrong target. It doesn’t address climate
change. Solving climate change means figuring out how to keep remaining
fossil fuels in the ground. It means reorganizing industrial societies’
energy, transport and housing systems – starting today – so that they
don’t rely on coal, oil and gas. Carbon trading isn’t directed at that
goal. Instead, it’s organized around keeping the wheels on the fossil
fuel industry as long as possible and making it seem politically
excusable to go ahead with new carbon-intensive infrastructure, like the
3rd runway at Heathrow and the proposed new coal-fired power plants,
like the one at Kingsnorth. Carbon trading allocates industries a
generous short-term numerical emissions budget and then tries – through
trading – to make it cheap and easy for them to continue business as
usual within those budgets, by buying credits from less economically
developed countries and companies. We need climate action, not business
schemes.

So far, carbon trading has been one disaster after another
Even if you were to accept that it might be a good idea, carbon trading
has been a massive failure so far and doesn’t show any signs of
improving. The price of carbon has always been so low that it’s always
cheaper for companies to buy permits than to start paying for more
expensive infrastructural changes. The allocations of permits have been
so generous that a number of Europe’s biggest polluters have made HUGE
profits by selling on permits that they didn’t need, or by passing on
the cost of the permits to consumers – despite the fact that they have
been handed out for free! E.ON is just one example of a company that has
made billions in windfall profits so far from carbon trading. We need to
learn from these mistakes, not replicate them.

Leaving it to the market is ineffective and undemocratic
Markets themselves aren’t a bad thing, but not when they artificially
create overly-complex markets based on an ideological commitment to
solving every problem through the market rather than a natural evolution
of trading in existing commodities. Important decisions, discussions and
demands about climate change are being swept aside in favour of ‘leaving
it to the market,’ despite the fact that it’s a market whose parameters
and rules have been largely determined by some of the biggest polluters
around, teaming up with the same financiers responsible for the
‘structured investment vehicles’ and ‘credit derivative swaps’ that have
brought economies crashing down. They say markets, we say democracy.

Carbon trading interferes with positive solutions to climate change
On India’s Bhilangana river, local farmers run a finely-tuned terraced
irrigation system that provides them with rice, wheat, mustard, fruits
and vegetables. This ingenious, extremely low-carbon system of
agriculture is threatened by a new hydro-electric project designed to
help power India’s heavy industry. Villagers may have to leave the
valley, losing not only their livelihoods but also their knowledge of a
uniquely sustainable modern technology. Is carbon trading stepping in to
support the villagers’ piece of the solution to climate change? On the
contrary. It’s supporting the hydropower company, which has hired
consultants to argue that their dam will result in fewer carbon
emissions than would have been the case if it had not been built. The
firm plans to sell the resulting carbon emission rights to polluting
companies in Europe. The example is typical of the way carbon markets
are undermining positive approaches to climate change everywhere. The
bulk of carbon credit sales under the Kyoto Protocol benefit chemical,
iron and steel, oil and gas, electricity and other companies committed
to a fossil-fuel intensive future, not communities, organizations or
firms working to overcome fossil addiction. We need grass-roots, modern,
sustainable solutions, not outdated financial interference.

The financial crisis rings enormous alarm bells about carbon markets
Carbon trading, like the financial system that led to current economic
crisis, is characterised by incredibly complicated accounting procedures
that very few people really understand. Just like our current financial
institutions, it’s formed around a profit-driven motivation to make
large numbers of transactions regardless of the ‘sub-prime’ nature of
those transactions, and fundamental problems in asset valuation. The
whole concept of carbon trading is based on taking a ‘real’ need (in
this case, the need to reduce carbon emissions) and abstracting that
need into increasing complicated financial commodities and derivatives.
There is a real parallel with the way a basic human need like housing,
was transformed and abstracted through financial markets to ‘sub-prime
mortgages’ and eventually ‘Structured Investment Vehicles’. The
complexity of this process of creating financial derivatives doesn’t
serve any human need other than making huge sums of money for small
numbers of people, and in doing so creates enormous instability and
turmoil once the house of cards inevitably collapses. We need
grass-roots control of our needs and communities, not the disastrous
instability of market based ‘solutions’.

Trading carbon doesn't cure our addiction to fossil fuels
Setting a price for carbon isn't even a very good way of stopping people
emitting it.  We use fossil fuels because we started using them and then
it became a habit, this is called lock-in – the way a technology becomes
ingrained in society even though it isn't the best available – a good
example is the QWERTY keyboard – this arrangement of letters was
designed because typewriters jam if you type too fast, on computers this
isn't a problem but we still use the same technology that is obviously
less good, and even if other keyboards were cheaper people wouldn't use
them.  This 'lock in' also doesn't respond to gradual changes, it
requires a sudden change to break these irrational habits. We need to
recover from our fossil fuel addiction, not prolong it.

Measuring emissions isn’t easy
One surprising problem with any numerical system of emissions
restrictions is that it's quite difficult to measure them. Additionally,
this sensitive and vital task is not done by an independent body:
polluters themselves are actually responsible for collecting data on
both their current and past emissions, data against which any reductions
will be measured! There is evidence that one of the problems with the
Emissions Trading Scheme is that the figures on which reductions were
based were massively over estimated by the polluters. We need commitment
to change, not complication, corruption & stagnation.

Carbon trading represents the total privatization of the planet
Accepting the concept of a right to pollute in exchange for money is, in
effect, like selling the sky. There are certain things in which there
should never be a complete market. Although land can be bought and sold
relatively freely, most societies regulate who can own land, how much
and what you can do with it, otherwise it is theoretically possible for
one person to own all the land and to decide to leave it uncultivated -
and no society could tolerate this. So why should we allow this to
happen to the atmosphere? By carving up the atmosphere itself, all of
our notions of democracy and fairness become at best ridiculous, and at
worst, obsolete. We need equality, not ownership.

If you were an energy company…
If you were an energy company that relied predominantly on fossil fuels
and a worldwide carbon trading system was to be brought in: first, you'd
be lobbying to make sure that the scheme suited you, then you'd get as
many permits as possible by lobbying and claiming that your past
emissions were higher than they really were. You'd find cheap ways to
generate credits by buying into schemes that created permits (often in
the developing world) and you'd employ a group of hotshot traders to buy
and sell your permits to try and increase the number you had.

In addition you'd ensue that the people regulating the system were as
friendly to you as possible and you'd probably try and make sure that
the emissions recorded for your power plants were recorded as low as
possible. If all else failed, you'd pass on the increase in costs to
your customers, perhaps even with a bit extra because all the energy
companies will be doing the same. You could also invest some time in
persuading the regulators that this technology was reducing emissions
more than it really was. Each year as the government tried to reduce the
number of permits, you'd also try and make sure that yours were cut a
bit less than everyone else's, while your lawyers argued in the courts
that the government can't take away what is essentially your property
(your permits to pollute) without compensating you monetarily.

What are the alternatives to carbon trading?
This is a bit of a false question: it presumes that carbon trading has
some sort of merit that justifies it being included in the selection of
possible options available. Its like asking, what’s the alternative to
implementing an ineffective, unjust system to deal with climate change
that rewards the biggest polluters and that has very harmful
consequences for communities in the Global South?

The most obvious and rational alternative is to simply not do it. There
are a wide variety of ways to reduce emissions that are appropriate for
different individuals, communities, companies and countries. Any of
these many ways forward should be evaluated (along with important
factors like equity and social justice) on the criteria of whether or
not it allows us to move away from extracting and consuming large
amounts of fossil fuels. Carbon trading does exactly the opposite of
this – it sanctions further fossil fuel burning. Climate justice now!

Compiled for the Climate Camp National Gathering, Nottingham, March 7th
2009.
Revised for the London Climate Camp Carbon Trading Weekend, March 21st 2009.




James Holland

http://risingclevel.blogspot.com/

Jonathan Leighton wrote:
> We have http://climatecamp.org.uk/g20-why from a list compiled by Kevin.
> 
> Kevin also told me a while ago he was going to work on a longer piece of
> text, I don't know whether that is still happening.
> 
> When we agree on the flyer text I can put it up on the website.
> 
> Jon
> 
> On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 08:43 -0700, Gwyfyn wrote:
>> I think Sky had a point re URL's, have we got ours on there?
>>
>> Maybe that would lead people to links etc anyways.
>>
>>
>>
>> PS Can some one send this to the right ppl:
>>
>> Dear G20 ppl/ Website bods.
>>
>> We will need a critique of Carbon Trading on the website somewhere.
>>
>> I have not checked yet. But will be able to shortly after I have gotten
>> some fresh air.
>>
>> M x
>>
>>> hi All,
>>>
>>> Okay i have just stuck Danny's & Jess's text in very quickly, because if I
>>> dont get outside today I might start to rot. I will fix it tonight (as it
>>> doesnt work anymore in terms of design).
>>>
>>> We might be able to get agreement to send it to print tomorrow- in which
>>> case we will have it for next weekend. Otherwise, we have until next
>>> Monday
>>> to fix it - and we will get it Friday the 27th.
>>>
>>> I am really attached to the 'Age of Oil' , but i have changed it. Are
>>> people
>>> sure it is better?
>>>
>>> jody
>>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 




James Holland

http://risingclevel.blogspot.com/