We have already bypassed a stage in the global ecological crisis where immediate multi-lateral reaction was necessary to prevent or even alleviate the consequences of climate change. As a result, many would jump blindly to the defence of any mechanisms that have been implemented that appear to tackle and reduce further environmental degradation. Surely, seeing the success (however limited) of institutional co-operation, pollution permits and emissions trading appear a positive force? For those who advocate it, a mechanism which seeks to internalise our planet's atmosphere into the market system is an important step. This view is based upon the belief the market could drive innovation towards reducing emissions and lowering our impact on the environment. Heidi Bachram poignantly argues this is not the case and as well as having devastating repercussions for the developing world it also exacerbates ecological issues. If we chose to take a closer look at the effects of emissions trading we can see how they are effective in reinforcing injustice rather than tackling the ecological crisis directly.
In terms of illustrating and contextualising this issue we could refer to Ridley Scott's seminal Blade Runner (1982). Obviously we cannot draw direct parallels between emissions trading and Hollywood but it is still interesting in this case to analyse this particular vision of a dystopian future with one eye on our own fate. In Blade Runner an ecological crisis of existential capacity has led to increased corporate power, fundamental eco-colonial objectives and areas in the Global North being the only habitable regions left. We can use these features of Ridley Scott's dystopia to help frame the impact of pollution permits and emissions trading.
Although emissions trading seems to restrict the flex of major corporations in reality it has transformed to have the opposite effect. The mechanism itself remains largely unregulated and is only monitored by internal agents who benefit from fraud where the contentious credit-earning projects allow corporation to not actively reduce emissions but receive copious amounts of money from government incentives.
Central to Bachram's framework is how this occurs as result of exploitation of the Global South’s resources and people. Representing a move to liberalise and privatise the global commons and resources this has led to consequences of detriment to the environment. This happens at the expense of pre-existing developing societies and bio-cultures which are removed for profit and indirect continued environmental degradation. When we are supporting the action of emissions trading we are legitimatising the destruction of environmental diversity as a result. The imposition of these procedures in the Global South acts as a ‘dump’ and an occupying force for the powers of the over-consumptive North. Previously dependent for these natural resources for survival the people of developing countries are now being evicted from these areas. Colonial and imperialistic divisions are therefore reinforced as corporations and governments give the illusion they are attempting to tackle the ecological crisis.
A compelling argument Bachram refers to throughout her disparagement of emissions trading is how the current course of action has no capacity to be monitored or criticised dramatically narrowing the debate. Even if emissions trading was having a significant impact on reducing pollution the transformation of the atmosphere into a commodity only reinforces inequities that existed within the market already. Shifting the burden on to Global South is not a viable solution to the problems we face.
This data from the International Carbon Action Partnership report demonstrates a continued emphasis on emissions trading to reduce pollution levels. Emissions trading was and continues to be a way of attempting to reduce pollution to adhere to levels set by the 1997 Kyoto protocol. Even if we imagine the destructive nature of emissions trading didn't exist, the targets set by the Kyoto protocol will not be sufficient in tackling the consequences we will face. It would be impossible anyway to regulate the emissions trading market even if we felt it could be used as part of a solution. We must seek new and improved initiatives without being distracted by the severe environmental injustice emissions trading poses.
Bibliography
Bachram, H. (2004) ‘Climate fraud and carbon colonialism: The new trade in greenhouse gases’, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 15(4), pp. 5–20. doi: 10.1080/1045575042000287299.
https://icapcarbonaction.com/en/status-report-2016
No comments:
Post a Comment