How About a Global Carbon Labelling Law?
The Copenhagen round of talks aimed at building a consensus about the features of the next climate treaty is scheduled to take place this December however, there seem to be no signs of consensus over how the world should proceed to reduce its carbon emissions. Which tool would be most effective? Clean Development Mechanism, a global carbon tax or maybe a global carbon labelling law?
Clean Development Mechanism has been tried, tested and, well, has been branded somewhat ineffective by not only the people outside the system but the people who are actually a part of it, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Bureaucratic delays, procedural wrongdoings in approval of projects and failure to make any difference at the grass-root level are some of the well known problems with this scheme.
The European Union has proposed that the CDM be replaced by a global carbon tax. United States saw a national carbon tax bill introduced in the Congress. The bill calls for levying an ‘carbon equivalency fee’ on imported products, in addition to the nationwide carbon tax in order to neutralize the losses incurred by domestic manufacturers. China has opposed this move saying that the developed countries are in part responsible for the emissions as they are the end users.
With no consensus on a global carbon tax and possibility of a diplomatic row if the United States unilaterally goes ahead with the provisions stated in its carbon tax bill, a global carbon labelling bill seems to be the perfect way out.
Whenever the demands of mandatory emission targets for developing nations have come up, India and China have pointed fingers back to the United States saying that it has a ‘historical responsibility’ to control its carbon emissions. Since India or China are not willing to commit to mandatory emission reductions it would be difficult for the governments of developed nations to convince their citizens to agree to a carbon tax, especially during this economic recession.
By mandating industries across the world to label their products with the carbon emissions generated during their production, transportation etc. the power will be with the consumers. Such a law would add to responsibility and accountability to the actions of the developing nations which could be the first step towards self-regulation.
Cheaper imported products with bigger carbon footprint would face serious competition with those costly yet carbon efficient local products. The demand for cheaper imported products could take a hit which in turn could force the developing countries to acquire clean manufacturing technologies thus resulting in reduction of their carbon emissions. The developing countries would still enjoy an edge in the market as there would be limited change in labor costs.
However, there are problems with a global carbon labelling law. Such a law would only address the industrial carbon emissions and not the household emissions. Household emissions in the developed nations are much higher than those in the developing nations - yet another reason why India and China refuse to agree to a deal which does not cover the household emissions. Another problem - who owns up to the emissions generated during transportation of the goods. And how would this kind of law affect the domestic market. Despite these unanswered questions a carbon labelling bill would definitely make the countries around the world responsible towards their share of carbon emissions, hopefully making them take some concrete steps to control them.
The advanced developing countries must share the burden of reducing carbon emissions and at the Copenhagen talks some kind of global emissions reduction target must be discussed. But even if the world leaders fail to find a common ground on emission targets, they must agree to recognize and share the responsibility to cut emissions.
Image: gwire (Creative Commons)
I am all for it - show what each and every item costs in carbon emissions. Such as how many tonnes of CO2 are generated in the manufacture of one tonne of steel.
One major point though - the UN would need a rather large carbon accounting police force to insure compliance and accuracy. Guess that would create jobs at least.
As there would be no penalty for misrepresenting the carbon number (of any significance) I can see products from many companies in Asia coming in with negative carbon numbers - even government certified numbers!
Carbon emissions must be controlled. It does not matter where we start, as long as we start.
Carbon taxes seem a great idea, whether accepted internationally or only by separate governments, to start with the more developed countries. It seems only fair to start there. They were the first to spill out huge amounts of Co2 and in the process teaching the rest of the world.
Other countries will follow, as they have and will continue to follow in the footsteps of the developed world.
Seems like a simplistic point of view? Maybe, but oftentimes governments make an issue so complicated that no one can follow. Oftentimes it’s the simplistic way that will cause most of us to follow.
I don’t understand the attention that manmade or man related CO2 is attracting as a greenhouse gas. There are many greenhouse gases and CO2 is a minor player. Atmospheric water vapor is a far, far more important greenhouse gas.
CO2 is produced by volcanos, decomposition of vegetative material and microscopic organisms in the soil and in the oceans and by billions of wild animals, birds, and fish. These sources produce thousands of times the amount of CO2 that man related activities produce.
Mankind’s contribution to greenhouse gas production is MINISCULE! It is a very, very small fraction of one per cent.
All mankind production of CO2 could stop tomorrow and the world would not notice any difference at all.
Michael - I agree that nature is balanced or comes into balance in one manner or the other.
Do you really believe that mankinds activities are covered by the natural controls and balances. That the billions of people on earth have no part of throwing the natural balance out the window?