Rogue traders could save Kyoto
Carbon traders do not easily secure sympathy. Yet their role is vital.
By Mark Lynas Published 12 March 2010 12:50
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
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists



















7 comments
Mark, do you have any ideas of tbe problems carbon trading is already causing in developing countries?
Do you have any idea of the difficulties of tropical forestry and the displacement of indigenous peoples by big nature orgs and now carbon traders. Both Fred Pierce and Mark Dowie do. This is very much akin to the Biofuals issue, which George Monbiot among others raised. How can you not be aware of this?
You are reporting as if you are a developed country politician. Fine, there are reasons for the carbon trading process, but its social and political implications are horrific.
Think about what all these price incentives do to land markets. Think about dumping energy market purchasing power into land markets. Think about the effects on food prices and the poor.
You could start with Utsa Patnaiks "Republic of Hunger" essay collection. Or Mark Dowie's Conservation Refugees. Or just read Fred Pierce's latest in the Guardian.
Mark, could you do a piece laying out your thinking on rights to the environment, how they relate to rights to life, and the role of equity in climate negotiations?
You seem to accept unquestioningly that carbon traders have a right to enclose the planetary commons. This may seem like a practical fix, but it is the same bad politics that has caused countless failures in wildlife conservation, so it is most definitely not practical, despite being grossly unjust
The sub-editor/picture researcher might like to know that the UN suspended Chinese CDM wind farm projects on the grounds that they were non-additional
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/12/01/un.china.wind.ft/index.html
ie. were being developed irrespective of the carbon market - although the existence of that market allowed the projects to generate credits, which can then be sold back to EU-based power companies, so that they can continue to burn coal. Which, in turn, illustrates one of the many flaws in Mark Lynas's piece (we're argued the case more thoroughly at http://www.carbontradewatch.org/carbon-trade-fails ).
There is a huge emerging discussion about how dangerous carbon trading is in developing countries, involving people from the actvist and academic community worldwide. Mayfly has just published a very scholarly volume on this under creative commons, so there is no reason not to be informed about this issue:
http://mayflybooks.org/?page_id=194
There is also plenty of material about the rights of Forest Dwellers that will be compromised by Carbon cycle enclosure e.g. for India
http://forestrightsact.com
This will end up as another bubble for many reasons as carbon trading 'risk' is repackaged to investors - meanwhile the smart money has taken massive profits and left the game.
Re: Jon
And 87.91% of all statistics are made up on the spot......
90% of all Carbon trading is fraudulent.