Climate Change Resilience Mechanisms – Global Issues

Diposting pada

Flexibility Mechanisms They are defined in the Kyoto Protocol (COP3) as different ways of achieving emissions reduction as part of efforts to address climate change issues. These were highly controversial as they were essentially implied on a strong American insistence on keeping the United States in the treaty. These fall into the following categories described below:

emissions trading

Emissions trading, or carbon trading as it is alternatively known, involves trading carbon emissions credits within nations.

  • Allocations turn emissions into a commodity that can be traded between industries.
  • By starting with a limit that is gradually reduced each year, the rest of the emissions are available for use or trade if you don’t use them yourself.
  • As the limits are lowered every year, companies have to find ways to reduce their emissions, through innovation and change or trade.

Proponents say this mechanism will bring private companies by setting a price on carbon, creating market pressures that drive efficiency, innovation and better outcomes.

The Kyoto Protocol states that emissions trading is OK, but it should not be the primary means of fulfilling one’s obligations.

Some European countries and companies have I started Implement such programs to get a head start and see how well they work, while in Chicago, the United States, greenhouse gases Emissions trading market is emerging. Chicago and Mexico City, for example, Join the Carbon Trading Initiative.

Proponents of carbon trading believe that such markets can be useful in gaining experience and developing a standard framework for monitoring emissions. It can also help figure out the price of greenhouse gas reduction [greenhouse gases]. But opponents feel the pressure should be on making real cuts by reducing the use of fossil fuels that cause greenhouse gas emissions rather than buying the right to pollute by buying emissions allowances.

carbon for saleEquity Watch, Center for Science and the Environment, June 15, 2001

Critics argue that it would be easier to buy credits than to reduce emissions, so it wouldn’t really work and would just be polluting license.

Due to the collapse of the former Soviet Union, emissions from the countries of the former Soviet Union have decreased significantly, but under the Kyoto agreements, emissions can reach the 1990 limits. In essence then, trading at the 1990 limits could lead to more emissions, as The summary is below:

[I]In the period up to 2012, Hot air Trading could actually lead to an increase in global emissions. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Russia and Ukraine secured the right to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by 2012. Since their economies collapsed after 1990, emissions of Russia and Ukraine are currently well below 1990 levels. In theory, these two countries would be allowed to increase their emissions by 50% and 120 % respectively by 2012. However, their industries will not be able to grow that fast. Instead, they would be able to sell much of that benefit to other countries. The United States has already made clear its intention to purchase this Hot air In order to achieve a large proportion of the reduction requirements.

Simon Ritalak Kyoto loopholesThird World Network, March 2001
The cartoon depicts politics in global warming negotiations where Uncle Sam (representing rich countries, including the United States) twists the arms of a poor person (representing poor countries) to sell emissions quotas at filthy cheap prices.
© Science and Environment Center1998

back to top


The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is similar to CDM, but when developed countries invest in countries of the South or developing countries. It aims to be part of a sustainable development programme.

For some developing countries, this is important due to the potential attractiveness of foreign investment.

However, there were several concerns:

  • Critics argue that rich countries can avoid responsibilities at home and that they will actually increase emissions because the credits earned will allow rich countries to emit more emissions, while developing countries are not constrained to cut at this point (because it is unfair to penalize them for what is internationally recognized for It is largely caused by rich countries Climate justice and equity For more information on this aspect.)
  • It is also criticized that instead of transferring important technology to developing countries (so that they are enabled to develop and produce themselves), free trade mechanisms will instead lead to More dependency (And, paradoxically, it is on the multinational companies that they are criticized for being the most polluters.)
  • By treating emissions as commodities, it is feared that the structural injustice we see between the North and the South in commodity trade in general will continue.
  • In essence then, this is criticized for allowing rich countries to continue using and burning fossil fuels while not paying the Third World to do so.
  • In addition, like Science and Environment Center (CSE) indicates, Rich people get land from poor countries to address their own emissions issues, not to help the poor, while not actually focusing on reducing emissions. The Europe Observatory for companies He also has concerns in this area:

    Several corporate projects that may become eligible for emission credits – nuclear power plants, so-called clean coal Plants as well as industrial farming and large-scale tree plantations (including genetically modified varieties) – have very negative social and environmental impacts. investments in carbon leak (such as large-scale tree plantations) in the south will lead to land use at the expense of local people, accelerate deforestation, deplete water resources and increase poverty. The North’s mandate to buy cheap emissions credits from the South, often through projects of an exploitative nature carbon colonization. Industrialized countries and their companies will reap Easy to get (the cheapest credits), which burdens the countries of the South with only expensive options for any future reduction commitments they may be required to make.

    rescue Kyoto Protocol means ending market maniaCorporate Europe Observatory, July 2001
  • It is also controversial because many questions were put to the Hague Conference. for example:
    • Boundaries are not agreed upon (or not even agreed on whether there should be limits).
    • It is not clear what scope of activities could be included. Nuclear, hydro and renewable energy are just some of the uncertainties.
    • Public participation and monitoring is critical.
    • Will some form of energy tax work?
  • Accountability and verification of emissions, credits, etc. are very difficult as emissions stocks and flows are difficult to determine.
  • Futhermore, as Europe Observatory for companies pointing to, Trade in emissions that lead to carbon credits Unequal property rights in the atmosphere Which in turn It would boost historical overuse by northern industry at the expense of the south (80% of all CO2 emitted since 1850 came from the north). A market without clearly defined equity cannot function, and the unfair equity that underlies currently proposed emissions markets will eventually be rejected by those losers.
  • Like custom search engine We further recall that in the lead-up to the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties in October 2002, the CDM remained a problem:

    Strong survivability, add-and-drop rules, impact assessment on local populations, and measures to reduce uncertainty must be in place or else the CDM will become a cheap way for industrialized countries to achieve their goals without making any changes at the local level.

    What’s up for discussion in CoP-8?CSE Briefing Note, October 25, 2002 (Link to article in PDF format.)

back to top

Tinggalkan Balasan

Alamat email Anda tidak akan dipublikasikan.