If governments measured and limited the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, it could help prevent the harmful effects of global climate change. Allowing the trading of emissions would award nations that practice clean and efficient energy production by placing a price on the ability to pollute the atmosphere.
I think emissions trading is not only a great way to combat global warming, but also, it works as a checks and balance system between the larger countries that have the biggest emissions issues, and smaller countries with more sustainable practices, but less economic power. Unfortunately, because the countries that would benefit least from the program are the largest and most powerful ones, I do not think this program will ever happen.
Only by working together will the world governments be able to achieve anything to truly help our environment. Global warming is a major issue that is already starting to have a major impact on our lifestyles, and will only continue to be worse, as years go by and more damage is done.
Emissions trading would both track and reward companies and consumers on products that produce pollution. When companies research, design, and produce emissions lower than a set point, they are rewarded, and those savings are passed on to the consumer. Both sides win, and the environment benefits. This reduces the costs of cleaning up pollution and caring for the illnesses it causes, so, such a program ends up paying for itself.
The adoption of universal emission trading by governments will help bring those governments polluting the earth into an alignment with the rest of the world. The practice will give those countries incentive to lower their pollution rate, by being able to make money for doing so. Another fact is the law for polluting will be universal, and have penalties for not obeying, which is another added incentive to lower pollution.
Cap and trade is not a perfect system, but it is a great way to help combat global warming. By making pollution credits a commodity, the government is able to help regulate the total amount of emissions into the atmosphere. By making pollution credits a commodity, it spurs commerce and allows the greatest polluters to choose to either pay for more credits or lower their emissions.
The consequences of climate change accrue daily, and people in developing countries are often the hardest hit. Previous efforts at international cooperation to limit the rate of carbon emissions have either been inadequate to the challenge, as in the Kyoto Protocol, or have essentially collapsed, as with the Copenhagen conference of 2009 (which issued some fairly meaningless statements of intentions rather than clear, binding obligations). An emissions trading approach, in which countries could shift the limits on emissions back and forth, might convince reluctant countries whose buy-in is crucial to the success of any anti-global warming initiative, such as the U.S. and China, to participate, and thereby lend legitimacy and momentum to the international effort to address this pressing problem.
The emission trading policy will discourage the developed countries to produce excessive amount of carbon and other green house chemicals. On the other hand, emissions trading will help the undeveloped countries since unfortunately, they are the ones who are most severely affected by global warming. So, the emissions trading will decrease emission of harmful materials and help fight its effects on the same time.
No, world governments shouldn't adopt emissions trading to combat global warming. We don't 100% know what is causing global warming. We also want to make sure that countries do have the freedom in their own trading. It just doesn't seem right to make rules about it.
Cap and trade would send home energy costs sky high and cause an enormous crunch in household budgets. Additionally, you cannot create a market for trading clean air; it just doesn't work and is totally silly. It has buckled in Europe. Furthermore, this idea is founded on faulty science. The earth and its environment have been changing since it was created; creatures come and ago, thrive and founder, today just as they have throughout time. The idea that somehow charging company for their emissions is going to improve the environment is very misguided. Charging them is going to cost everyone - the companies, the job holders, and the American people as energy prices necessarily skyrocket.
I believe each country or government should take steps to reduce their use of chemicals and other poisons that are harmful to the environment. They should also look for ways to reduce consumption (energy, packaging, etc.) amongst their populations to help stop the damage being done to the planet. Emissions trading is not enough. We must reduce the amount of emissions and other toxins we use/release.
North America is a carbon sink, because we plant trees and put out wildfires. China and India are huge carbon emitters, because they still burn wood for fuel. You think China and India will be paying for the huge number of coal plants they have under construction? I leave the question of why our government wants to limit our own industry as an excercise for the class...
I don't this is the best solution to the worlds emission problem. This would create an environment where some governments could feel like they could pay for their right to pollute the environment. This is not a proper solution.
Emissions trading would cause some companies and countries to produce less emissions thought to be causing global warming but others would just pay the money so they could keep producing as much or even more. The fact that the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles naturally and there has been no definitive proof that changes in the climate are a result of human actions is another reason why emissions trading is a bad idea.
While emission trading may serve as a good means to prevent global warming from worsening, encouraging large scale adoption of emission trading will not actually combat global warming.
In order to develop the means to effectively stop global warming, countries need to focus on the development and implementation of sustainable energy technologies. A country needs to implement time lines to exert pressure on its businesses to use increasingly more sustainable energy measures. In this manner, businesses will not be exchanging their emissions, but will actually lower them and improve the environment.
Emissions trading, or cap and trade, is not necessary because global warming has been recently proven to be based on faulty data. It would be very difficult to enforce. Many countries who have communist governments might be less than forthcoming in the actual emissions they are producing, which would punish countries that would follow the law. Another problem with cap and trade is who would be given the authority to enforce these laws? A question of giving that authority to another entity such as the U.N. would compromise national sovereignty.
In principle, emissions trading would seem like a good idea. However where it has actually been tried, it has not worked to reduce carbon emissions in any significant way. The European Union has for years had an emissions trading system, while their emissions rates have continued to climb. The only real way to economically incentivize the reduction of greenhouse emissions is through a meaningful carbon tax which lets them pay some of the costs of what they're doing now, reducing what society will have to pay in general with global warming down the road.
The idea of trading emissions credits to combat global warming is absurd. The practice would only encourage the poor countries to sell their credits for cash while allowing rich nations to continue their harmful ways and just buy credits to cover their bad behavior. While the practice would certainly bring in some fast cash for poorer nations, the problem behind the emissions would not be solved and would simply compound making global warming worse in the long run.