The real problem with carbon trading is that we create an accounting system out of an ecosystem process. It is impossible to measure the full extent of any ecosystem service...

According to market economic theory - upon which we are attempting to reduce carbon emissions by trading them - the value of a good or service is set by supply and demand. The more of something there is available, the less market value it has - the lower its price. There is a lot of air in the world, so it must have negligable value..? Try holding your breath for half an hour... how much is it worth now? 

Having a market price for CO2e emissions is meaningless. It is a socio-economic construct that couldn't be further from the ecological truth.

The only way to account for CO2e emissions is to account for the quantifiable materials that are used in producing them. As markets are imperfect (there are too many variables and too many flawed assumptions), using supply and demand to set price and having faith in such an 'invisible hand' isn't going to work. The only way is to create a 'gold standard' of ecological reality against which to trade - and use quantity as a tool of real value rather than having value mediated by money.

In simple terms: fossil fuel rationing. It sounds outrageous now, but I'm happy to stick my neck out and guarantee it will happen eventually anyway, not as a result of GHG emissions targets, but because of the peak in oil production.

Apart from all this though, and of deeply greater significance, the more-than-human world has intrinsic value. It has a right to exist beyond its usefulness to human beings...

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Comment

smaller | bigger

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment