tracting emissions of the developed world will coincide with the increased emissions o f the developing world - this is the 'convergence' bit. But this theory incorporates a 'carbon-trading' element. That is the rich countries could buy rights of emission from the less emitting developing areas if they produce less carbon than their ration. We should therefore oppose it.
The majority of the more or less organised currents look to capitalist solutions in market mechanisms, carbon trading, supplemented by taxation. The currently operated system is the European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS), is the most regressive of all carbon-trading schemes and operates according to the principle laid down at Kyoto. Permits for 6527 million tones of carbon dioxide emission have been allocated to big energy users.
This does not encourage cleaner energy but has simply given them a profit bonanza, as the price of permits rose to [27, making the whole distribution worth 0177 billion. They have also passed on 'extra costs' to the consumer even though they did not have to buy the permits - leading to rising prices. The EU officials have said that they knew this would happen and state that the market economy is the only way (i.e., higher prices) that energy consumption will fall.
Most climate change activists oppose Kyoto and the EU schemes, Contraction and Convergence (C&C) is seen as an alternative to the EU (ETS) and the Kyoto protocol and is the most widely supported system, but there are other systems that are hotly debated, most of which involve carbon trading and taxation of some kind, but some are more equitable (a key word an the movement) than others.
The more equitable systems, for example, Cap and Share (C&S), or Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs), involve capping and the distribution of tradable allowances to the population based on the equal 'right to emit'. However, there is no such human right under
Initial sponsors in persor
Baljeet Ghale TPres
Thames College UCU). capitalism except for those rights claimed by the owners of the means of production.
Our biggest immediate policy difference (there is a big programmatic gulf) with the capping movement is their insistence on tradable allowance. We oppose this because it benefits the big emitters and penalizes the working class (ironically this is often the main objection to a tax perspective by those left leaning Greens).
We should support planned capping (or equitable rationing) without the right to trade (e.g., as in Second World War). The reply, like all reformists of the existing system, is that we are unrealistic because without trading of carbon permits it would be totally unacceptable to big companies and would probably bring the capitalist system down.
Carbon trading (along with taxation) is the premier
• On climate change we should campaign around the following transitional and immediate demands which are designed to halt and reverse the global warming process and thus prevent chimate chaos and rising sea levels.
• These should include a 90% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050, based on a 6% annual target, monitored by independent scrutiny. The industrialised countries, who have caused the problem, must take the lead in this. The most impoverished peoples are paying the highest price for the actions of the advanced countries. binge flying. Nationalise the airlines.
• Redesigned cities to eliminate unnecessary journeys and conserve energy.
• Scrap weapons of mass destruction and use the resources tor sustainable development and renewable energy.
• Massive investment to make homes more energy efficient. Moves towards the collectivisation of living spaces.
• Nationalisation of the supermarkets, localised food production and a big reduction in food miles.
• No GM crops for food or fuel.