BBC News. Carbon trading can be used to protect endangered rainforests by compensating nations that avoid deforestation, the World Bank has said. The World Bank report said 5% of the world’s rainforest is lost each decade. According to the World Bank, deforestation contributes to 20% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Deforested land that is worth $200-500 as pasture could be worth $1,500-$10,000 if left as forest and used to offset – or trade against – carbon emissions in the industrial world. The most important greenhouse gas contributing to global warming is carbon dioxide (CO2), which is mainly emitted by burning fossil fuels. The World Bank is one of the main players in carbon financing, and estimates the value of carbon traded in 2005 to be about $10bn.
Carbon trader (perdagangan karbon) merupakan mekanisme yang digunakan untuk pengurangan carbon dioksida di atmosfer. Dalam beberapa kasus, hal ini dipandang kurang efektif.
BBC News. But the latest figures for the European Trading Scheme (ETS) – started in January 2005 and heralded as a template for such schemes – revealed that 21 of the 25 member states produced 2.5% less CO2 in 2005 than participants had forecast. It is this second aspect that most concerns opponents of carbon trading. By allowing polluters to keep polluting, carbon trading fails to change the underlying behaviour that causes emissions (Tony Ward, energy director of consultancy Ernst & Young and Roger Salmons, a senior environment research fellow at the London based think-tank the Policy Studies Institute). Power companies are arguably the worst polluters, but far from suffering under the scheme they have benefited. IPA Consulting told the BBC that UK utilities firms stood to gain up to a £1bn “windfall” from carbon credits they had been given free of charge by the government before passing on the value to customers as if it were a cost.
Moreover, even if carbon trading is one solution to global warming, it has serious limitations. Whole sectors of the economy are excluded, as well as entire nations. In the UK, for example, about a third of our carbon emissions come from industry. But about two-thirds, split evenly between homes and transport, are excluded from any carbon cap. Aviation is the fast growing source of CO2 and exempt from any limits. The US, the world’s biggest polluter, decided not to ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty, so is exempt from targets. Although the US has started voluntary schemes, these are only in certain states and are not binding. And China, which is tipped to become the biggest energy consumer by the middle of this century, is not obliged to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Disisi lain, upaya menanam pohon masih belum sebanding dengan kerusakan yang terjadi.
RSA. In one camp there is no such thing as offsetting carbon. Planting trees or funding green development does not equal the damage already done. Not only is the timescale incompatible, but it encourages the wealthy to continue to damage the climate whilst the rest bare the brunt. In the other camp, this the first step towards recognising that carbon has a real cost, and gives the public a tool for measuring their footprint and engaging in a collective effort to reduce our emissions. Then there are those lost in the middle, put off by the sceptics but keen to contribute to climate change action, and see this as one existing way.
First we heard from an expert panel with a wide range of views and experience. Stephen Hale (Green Alliance) argued that although potentially a catalyst towards greater behaviour change, the market and science was still too immature. Hale felt that there were more important priorities, for example the government should adjust the pricing structure for home energy efficiency. His conclusion was, “offset but don’t feel too good about it”.
Masih banyak hal yang harus digali dari perdagangan karbon internasional.