Rogue traders could save Kyoto

Carbon traders do not easily secure sympathy. Yet their role is vital.

Shed a tear for the carbon traders. At a Point Carbon trading conference in Amsterdam earlier this month, the air of despondency was more than palpable, it was physical. At the session I chaired, delegates sat slumped in their seats. There were few questions. Everyone I spoke to felt the same way. Copenhagen was a disaster. No one knew where things were headed now. Some were considering new careers.

Carbon traders do not easily secure sympathy. Many are well-off; they show no particular interest in saving the planet. Yet their role is vital. Via the markets they operate, they have put a cost on our use of the atmosphere as a carbon-dioxide dumping ground, "as if", as Al Gore puts it, "it were an open sewer".

Economists, politicians and campaigners all agree that putting a price on carbon is necessary to make the shift to a low-carbon economy real. As a result, non-fossil alternatives such as wind and solar become cheaper by comparison, and the worst polluters such as coal become relatively more expensive. With no price on carbon, dumping CO2 in the atmosphere is free. The big polluters, whether Peabody Energy or Exxon Mobil, are able to make billions because the cost to the environment of their products is borne by the rest of us. Price carbon properly and the fossil fuel behemoths can begin to pay us back.

Kyoto, for all its failings, began to weave this price signal through global commerce, and not just in the industrialised countries that took on its targets. In China and India, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has become huge business - worth $6.5bn in 2008. It has driven millions of dollars' worth of clean investments into developing countries which otherwise have no incentive not to burn fossil fuels.

But the CDM appears doomed unless a new period of the Kyoto Protocol is negotiated to replace the current one when it runs out in 2012. But a new lease of life for Kyoto gets less likely by the day. The US pulled out under George W Bush, and will never rejoin - "Kyoto" is politically toxic in Washington. Canada, thanks in part to its tar sands oil extraction operations, is miles over its target, and seems not to care.

Even the EU, once the bedrock of Kyoto support, has gone cold. The main cheerleading now comes from the developing world, particularly China and India. But this is politics, too - China supports Kyoto because it divides the world into rich and poor. China is considered poor, so is exempted from targets and can go on building coal-fired power stations at a breakneck pace.The carbon trade is also important as it might have helped protect the world's tropical forests from the loggers, plantation owners and cattle ranchers who threaten their survival. With no price on carbon, there is no price on forests either - and their value as dead timber or cleared land will remain far higher than their value as irreplaceable stores of biodiversity and living carbon.

But the real reason for the latest bout of depression is not China, nor forests - but the US. Unless President Obama can find some way to force climate legislation through the Senate, the $2trn potential US carbon market will never materialise. Emitting carbon will continue to be free to American companies, weakening any argument for tougher regulation in India and China. All in all, the prospects currently look great if you are Exxon Mobil or Peabody Energy. And that is bad news for the rest of us.

This piece also appears in this week's issue of the New Statesman

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Mark Lynas has is an environmental activist and a climate change specialist. His books on the subject include High Tide: News from a warming world and Six Degree: Our future on a hotter planet.

This article first appeared in the 15 March 2010 issue of the New Statesman, Falklands II

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496