Emissions trading
FT Climate Experts' Forum - 14 December
IPN Opinion article
IPN's Executive Director discusses the first week of the Copenhagen Conference
Obama's dilemma: Carbon treaty or trade war
IPN Opinion article
Rather than benefiting the climate, carbon tariffs will only harm national economies
Protectionism in Green Garb
IPN Opinion article
The US Waxman-Markey energy bill claims to be about reducing greenhouse gas emissions but its hidden consequences include subsidies and protectionism for US firms plus trade war with the rest of the world. Even its core intention is made irrelevant by the current and future emissions of China and India. Aris Taristides explains some of the threats to other countries and to the USA itself of damaging trade, especially in a time of recession.
Protectionism harms consumers and the environment
IPN Opinion article
Proposals to restrict imports from countries which do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions are simply protectionism. They would decrease world trade, disproportionately harming poorer countries, and favour the status quo by rewarding inefficient producers and thus delaying the adoption of cleaner, resource-saving technologies.
Hot air and human health
IPN Opinion article
The WHO has overstated the health implications of climate change in order to call for strict caps on carbon emissions. By undermining economic growth, this would have very serious consequences for health in developing countries.
Cap and Blockade
IPN Opinion article
A seventh EU member state has decided to take legal action against the Commission, highlighting the absurdity of the growth-retarding Kyoto Protocol and similar "cap and trade" schemes, which would be enormously expensive and relatively ineffective at addressing climate change.
The End is Nigh Ö for the Kyoto Protocol
IPN Opinion article
At last week's climate change meeting in Buenos Aires, European governments
appeared finally to have woken up to the fact that the Kyoto Protocol sums
don't add up. Meanwhile, Brazil, China, India and the US ñ together
representing the majority of global emissions of greenhouse gases ñ seem
opposed the imposition of binding restrictions on emissions of greenhouse
gases after 2012, when Kyoto comes to an end. As a result, the Kyoto
Protocol itself may unwind. This would be good news for everyone, especially
the poorest.
Union must reconsider its carbon emissions policy
IPN Opinion article
IT HAS been a tumultuous year for Europe's climate policy. In May, European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrˆm announced that ten EU countries are not meeting their targets for emissions reduction under the Kyoto Protocol.
With both Australia and the US having chosen not to ratify Kyoto, the fate of the treaty now depends solely on Russia. And with the Russian announcement in October that it will not ratify, Kyoto's future looks bleak. Next month, at the 9th Conference of Parties (COP-9) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Milan, the Protocol may see the final nails in its coffin.
The European Union should let Kyoto ërest in peace', using its demise as an opportunity to reconsider its strategy towards climate change.
