Carbon emissions trading has been publicized as a way for companies to offset any damage that they might cause the environment. Emissions trading, however, makes it possible for companies to shirk responsibility for the pollution that they release into the environment. Instead of forcing companies to reduce the amount of carbon that they emit into the atmosphere, trading makes it possible for them to continue creating pollution while giving the appearance of environmental friendliness.

In addition, carbon emissions trading creates a new form of colonialism that allows companies in developed nations to continue meeting unchecked levels of demand while preventing poor countries from developing the technology that they need to eliminate poverty.

EPA,

Carbon emissions trading has become a trendy way for companies to show that they care about the environment. In reality, trading carbon credits does little to promote the environment’s health. In fact, it allows companies to continue creating large amounts of pollution while creating the illusion of responsibility.

Unchecked demand has created environmental disasters that will take centuries to correct. Carbon emissions trading does nothing to stop this trend. Let’s eliminate this so-called form of corporate responsibility so that we can force companies to truly accept responsibility for the pollution that they create.

In addition to creating problems for local ecologies, carbon emissions trading creates a new form of colonialism that allows developed nations to consume products without any regulation while poorer nations cannot afford to develop the technology that they need to eliminate poverty. Simply put, it is unfair for companies in prosperous nations to continue creating pollution simply because they have money to “pay” for the damage.

Let’s eliminate carbon emissions trading so that we can focus on the effects that manufacturing, transportation, and other areas of business have on the environment. That way, we can approach these problems from a realistic perspective rather than cloaking them in a system that benefits some while burdening others.

Sincerely,

Mark Effingham