The system of carbon credits in my view is highly questionable and so i think it ought to be discussed.
Is it a way to reduce carbon emissions or is it simply a pretence to buy oneself out of one's own responsibilities?
The carbon credit system originally developed to reduce the carbon emissions in the world, in the purview of global warming is a tradeable permit scheme.
It provides a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by giving them a monetary value.
A credit gives the owner the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide. Carbon credits are generated as the result of an additional carbon project. A credit can be an emissions allowance which is allocated or auctioned by the administrators of a cap-and-trade program or an offset of Greenhouse Gas equivalent carbon dioxide emissions
Businesses that are over their quotas must buy carbon credits for their excess emissions, while businesses that are below their quotas can sell their remaining credits. By allowing credits to be bought and sold, a business for which reducing its emissions would be expensive or prohibitive can pay another business to make the reduction for it. This minimizes the quota's impact on the business, while still reaching the quota.
This means a lot of money to any firm or institution or an industry as such which reduces carbon emmisions by adapting greener means and methodologies to gain carbon credit(which is tradeable).
The carbon credit system can be exploited and the responsibility of reducing emissions by a major polluter country can be shirked in accordance to one of the functioin of envisages of the clean mechanism drive of Kyoto protocol viz "A polluter country (obliged to reduce its emissions in order to meet its targets) can rely on a project that takes place in a developing country (that has no target to reach) and claim the credit from doing so. For the polluter country, it would usually be cheaper to invest in the reduction of emissions in developing countries than by domestic action."
It remains a fact that emissions -- both in absolute terms and on a per capita basis -- remain higher in America than in the EU-15 (the countries that belonged to the European Union before its 2004 expansion, and which are widely used as a comparison for the U.S. when the subject is global warming) or for that matter any developing country and through the system of carbon credits it clearly is buying its way out of reducing the carbon emissions.
Is this not buying ones way out of responsibilities?
Dont you think the major purpose of reducing the global emissions is not being served?
source:[ http://www.infochangeindia.org/agenda5_08.jsp ]
[ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118764555108003341.html?mod=googlenews_wsj ]
[ http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/carbon-offset-schemes-inherently-flawed/article-164715 ]
Also check this:[ http://issa.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.View&ContentRecord_id=451&Region_id=0&Issue_id=0 ]
I think it is a great compromise between carbon reduction, and economic progress. Obviously neither one is at its full potential through this system, that is why its a compromise. Through this system "greener" technologies will be developed and implemented. If you are a hard core anti-progress, pro-environmentalist this system is horrible, if you are a hard-core economist, then this system is horrible. If you want to see a working compromise that provides environmental benefits while still having economic progress, then this is a great system.