The following is a summary for those who don't want to read on (I know you don't like politics).
Environment Minister Prentice to voters:
We are placing caps on carbon emissions for all polluters in Canada.Environment Minister Prentice to polluters:
Don't worry, you can buy your way out of it.I shouldn't be so critical, but like the polar bear with the big paws, I was born that way. So the plan, as outlined in this Globe and Mail article, is to put a cap on carbon emissions. You can only emit up to a certain upper limit. Great idea by the way, at least 10 years too late (and the Liberals have their share of the blame in that) but great idea. But, if you emit beyond carbon beyond that cap, don't worry about it, you can buy credits on the open market.
How do I buy credits you ask? Easy, somebody is going to be such a good reducer of carbon emissions that they'll be far under the cap, you can buy the surplus from them. And in the event that no polluter has reduced emissions (worst case, but conceivable), there will be carbon projects that you can buy credits from to get you under the cap by offsetting your emissions.
This really ticks me off. Buying credits doesn't reduce a polluter's emissions. Rather, it helps to create projects that offset the emissions. Don't get me wrong, I understand that carbon offsets are a good thing. While they don't reduce emissions, they compensate for the emissions by making reductions somewhere else.
According to Mr. Prentice, the goal is to gradually reduce the ceiling of the cap to control emissions, but what if actual emissions never go down? What if, instead, polluters just buy more and more credits because it's easier and cheaper? Does this really solve the problem?
I know this is a step in the right direction, it just doesn't feel like enough. I'd prefer a hard cap and a mandatory credit system to offset emissions under the cap. But I suppose if I were in power, we'd be faced with a record setting deficit.
5 comments:
Not that I want to get all political and economical 'n' stuff (all three I know very little about) but it's always amazed me how fiscal conservatives consider the solution to this issue to economical: either it's the purchasing of credits, or the argument they've made that if only more people bought green products the companies would make more green products to reap that whirlwind. Of course, the companies then explain that they'd LOVE to, but purchasing credits is expensive and they have to past that cost along, while it would also cost too much to switch to a "green line".
It's always been like the argument against soccer in North America - "It's popular at kids levels, but they fall off as players when they get older." "Of course they do, because there's nowhere for them to play when they get older" "Well of course there isn't! The game's played mostly by kids!"
The problem is at all levels: people have to make better choices recognizing short term pain for long term gain, companies should provide those choices recognizing that they're going to take a hit but will be more efficient in the end, and government should be compelling them to develop those choices realizing that maybe the public good is worth losing donation money. Shifting blame from one side to the other is just how we got into that mass (like the ol' NB PSA: Where does the bottle go? Away.)
I know very little about every subject I speak of, which makes the debate that much more fun.
C'mon Donnie, I'm waiting for your post on Gladwell. Surely you have something to say...
I do Rachelle, and it's 70% drafted. Nancy has my notes, so hopefully I'll have it done by Monday.
You better put it up soon...because I don't want to blink and miss it! Being on the wrong end of the tipping point would make me feel like an outlier.
Why don't I have my own talk show?
-OR-
Why I don't have my own talk show.
Post a Comment