Don't carbon credit systems place a disproportionate burden on the poor, who can't afford them?

Question

After all, the wealthy can buy their way out of reducing their carbon footprints. So, the net result is, they pay some money, but they haven't helped the environment at all. Those not among the wealthy can't pay the carbon credits so they have to bear a higher portion of the carbon reduction necessary to save the planet.

Example - Al Gore - one of the biggest individual polluters on the planet due to size of home, use of fossil fuels for heat and power, use of water, pollution due to travel, etc. He can live his lifestyle with no adjustments due to paying carbon credits. Joe Shmo, who lives in a 2000 sq. foot house can't afford to pay for carbon credits ... so he has to take a big hit on his lifestyle by shivering in the winter, taking colder showers, using less water, and driving an even smaller car.....

Why not just require the biggest polluters to do more to stop polluting before requiring the smaller polluters to do that?

Mr. G: But why is it fair that Al Gore should get to buy his "indulgence" and be free from his obligation to simply reduce his own pollution? It's not that he "can't" reduce his pollution level without eliminating his good work. He doesn't have to live in a huge house, and have many vehicles, and all that. He can live a modest life and still be the green house guru. If all he wanted to do was pay extra for is huge number of airline flights he takes every year, then I'd sympathize (he has to travel to get his message out). However, he and others like him are paying for the privilege of being an elite class - those who can live in 15,000 square foot houses for no reason.

Anders -- the fact of the matter is Al Gore and those like him CAN reduce their pollution and carbon footprints. They are paying for the elite status of not HAVING to! If Al lived in a 2000 sq ft house and not a 15,000 sq ft house, I would agree. He doesn't need that house to do his important work.

Bob -- my point exactly, really. Al Gore has many cars. He doesn't need them all. He has a huge house which he doesn't need.

Answer 1

Theoretically, the carbon credits are suppose to be spent on programs that will help decrease the carbon footprints of the Joe Schmo's of the world that it makes up for Al Gore and the likes who buy credits.

You are correct in saying that there is a difference between the haves and the have nots in American society. In order for the capitalistic society to survive, there have to be bottom rungs of the ladder. America is built on the belief that the separation between the rungs on the ladder are small enough that anyone can climb it. I think your question is more about the different levels in American society rather than carbon credits. As long as the ladder can be climbed, there have to be bottom rungs. Unfortunately, those on the top of the ladder sometimes kick the people climbing the ladder so there is more room for those already on the top. They do not like to share. Perhaps, the conservatives in this country should look at all the kicking they do of those below them on my hypothetical ladder before they start harping on Al Gore for his purchase of carbon credits.

Answer 2

Carbon credit systems don't affect individuals, they're imposed on industries. An individual's carbon emissions are so low, especially if that person is poor, that the carbon credit system isn't applied to them. Even if it were, as I said, generally a poor person's carbon emissions are going to be very low, thus they won't be disproportionately charged.

"So, the net result is, they pay some money, but they haven't helped the environment at all."

Incorrect. Buying carbon credits helps the environment. If you help fund a project to get trees planted or to get a solar power system built that wouldn't have otherwise happened, then you're helping the environment. If you want to look at it as buying a clear conscience then that's your choice, but you can't deny that carbon credits benefit the environment.

"Those not among the wealthy can't pay the carbon credits so they have to bear a higher portion of the carbon reduction necessary to save the planet."

They're not expected to buy carbon credits. Individuals buying carbon credits is purely voluntary.

"Why not just require the biggest polluters to do more to stop polluting before requiring the smaller polluters to do that?"

That's exactly what a carbon credit system does. It forces companies to pay for their carbon emissions, not individuals.

Answer 3

Carbon Credits are fixed by governments, the EU and the subscribing countries of the Kyoto agreement. US isn't part of this as far as I know. Carbon Credit's aren't traded by individuals but are business issues understood the way that electricity companies gets + when they buy hydro energy and will have a penalty buying for instance coal energy. Carbon credits are also available to be earned if one supports a project or business that actively works for reduction of carbon emissions. The recent 20 % reduction of CO2 emissions for the year 2020 has some quite firm and binding targets that forces companies to comply. The carbon credit system is a way of measuring this. Of course there are some companies that are having to buy some credits because they aren't up to scratch. a lot is going to happen in 2008 when the credits aren't transferable to the next cycle.
Effectively there will be a penalty financially for buying heavy footprint. some cars are going t be more expensive, the tax on them likewise, the petrol.
But that is Europe. I wouldn't like to speculate on what happens in the States because they aren't a part of these agreements

Answer 4

Nobody is talking about restricting carbon emissions from Joe's house.

Carbon credits are basically so that large industries can reduce CO2 emissions in the cheapest way.

Their use by individuals is largely for show. Doesn't matter much, one way or another.

We don't have to take a big hit on our lifestyles. For example, if everyone only bought as large a car as they needed, not for status or to "feel good" we'd be a lot better off. Things like that.

EDIT: I understand your point. Mine is that carbon credits for large industries are a good thing.

Answer 5

The poorer, less industrialised nations have more scope to earn carbon credits because their quota's are not exhausted, unlike USA which is highly industrialised. Thus when development occurs in "poorer" countries they will earn carbon credits as a reward for proper ergodynamic planning of whatever industrial production is built in addition to what is already allotted. If USA, or example, seeks more industrial development it may then purchase quota's from less industrialised nations. The idea being that the polluter pays and the less industrialised get compensated for breathing polluted air that is not as a result of their actions.

Answer 6

If Al Gore really believed in this crap he was spewing about global warming, he wouldn't be leading a "carbon neutral" existence . . . an extravagant, luxurious lifestyle offset by buying "carbon credits."

If he truly believed it, then he would lead a modest existence: take public transportation and drive an econo-box. When he'd have to take air travel he'd fly coach instead of private jets. He wouldn't be leading a "carbon neutral" existence, he'd lead a "carbon surplus"existence.

The reality is that he doesn't believe this garbage; he simply found his niche market. He does, however, believe that people are stupid enough to live in straw huts and wear fig leaves while he laughs all the way to the bank.

Carbon credits . . . puhhhhh-leaze.

Answer 7

There is no need to reduce CO2 as that is just the way Mother nature marks it so the plants will know that is their job to clean up. The plants need CO2 as much as we need oxygen. The more CO2 the more plants as they take the C and produce their food ,and give us back the O2. Gore is afraid u will use up all the jet fuel so that is why all the hype but there is plenty fossil fuels. Mother nature is recycling it all the time.

Answer 8

iI think the thought is that those who can make reduction will get paid for it by those who can't. Hopefully this can mean that the poor will be paid for dong this.

Answer 9

makes sense to me