(Jörg Haas) "Justice is in the climate issue a luxury that we can not afford. Justice is not Matter of rhetoric, we can forget about it when it comes to action goes. This is a matter which requires the cooperation of all, and you will not get justice without this cooperation. " Sunita Narain, director of the Indian Centre for Science and Environment and years of productive observer of the climate debate has been on the podium of the alternative summit so much. (Here her most recent article the state of the climate debate). The Climate Justice considers that it is not only an inter-national challenge, but also an intra-national, within each country. Rocholl Martin, chairman of Friends of the Earth Europe , used to the challenge of climate justice made clear. He represented two principles: the environmental principle that the earth is limited and must keep our use of resources and production of exhaust gases to these limits. And the justice principle that every person is entitled in principle an equal share of the environmental resources of the earth. This suggests that the emissions have every U.S. American by now 20 tons of CO2 per year, and every German of about 10 tons of CO2 per year to about 2 t CO2 per year down. (The Powerpoint presentation will take place off tonight at www.martinrocholl.de ).
differences to come, as Elmar Altvater attack on emissions trading. The flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol are not a fair system, and only one way through the dubious projects in the South would only further emissions permits in the north. It was important the climate does not allow the market mechanism, the problem can not be solved by the same mechanisms with which it was created. - Why not, I wonder. If it is not - political, created - markets that have the rapid development of renewable energy brought? Is the market mechanism, the problem or the political environment in which it operates?
Klaus Milke ( German Watch and Air Alliance called) the undeniable problems of both the European emissions trading scheme and the flexible mechanisms, part of a learning process. It is important and right that CO2 get a prize. And Martin Rocholl pointed out that we need both: bans, that is the harsh intervention of regulatory law, and market instruments, if used correctly.
Elmar Altvater to thinking: It would be highly politically naive to get involved with those in neo-liberal principles-based instruments. Ultimately, though acting in the markets for emission rights will financial market players who had no interest in climate change, but just wanted to maximize their profit. This would allow an interest in reducing pollution, but rather to obtain.
Objection, Your Honor: The political debate on the European emissions trading showed just how fall apart in this matter, the interests of corporations: While the big energy companies (and, unfortunately, the unions of earning up IGBCE) to a generous allocation of emission rights urged there were financial market players, such as the German bank, Dresdner Bank, or the urge to capping emissions rights. This is logical: you have an interest in ensuring that emissions trading works, because only then can they deserve as a broker it. And without politically created shortages can work no emissions trading.
was clear this controversy, which divide in climate policy still prevails. Has the critical of capitalism left a credible instrument to avert tanker disaster capitalism from the air without using the tools of capitalism? The environmental movement has ruled in its majority for fighting climate change by all means - even if it is with market economy. Much material for debate ...
Photo: Simon Kramer
0 comments:
Post a Comment