A number of methods have been proposed to reduce the emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. The European Union has always favored taxing heavy polluters, while the United States has supported Tradable Pollution Quotas (TPQs). The 1997 Kyoto Protocol laid the foundation for TPQs. Under this agreement developing countries are exempt from the emission standards and cannot take part directly in pollution trading. Each country in the TPQ plan is initially permitted to produce a certain maximum amount of each polluting gas. Countries that want to exceed their quotas can buy the right to do so from other countries that have produced less than their quota. Furthermore, countries can also “sink” carbon (by planting forests to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) to offset some of their pollution quotas. Interestingly, two usually opposing groups are against TPQs. Industries claim that they go too far and that such stringent regulation is unnecessary. Environmentalists maintain that they are too lax.
PROS
The scientific community agrees that something must be done to curb emissions of greenhouse gases that may be the cause of global warming. The possible consequences of global warming include crop failure, mass flooding, and the destruction of entire ecosystems with the pos- sible loss of billions of lives. Other consequences of pol- lution include acid rain and the enlargement of the hole in the ozone layer.
The TPQ plan is the only practical way to reduce emis- sions of greenhouse gases globally. It will guarantee that global levels of these gases are kept below strict targets and is more realistic than expecting heavy polluters to cut their emissions overnight.
CONS
The environmental lobby has hugely overestimated the claims for pollution damaging the environment. The fossil record indicates that climate change has occurred frequently in the past, and there is little evidence linking climate change with emissions.
The TPQ plan ensures more pollution in the long run than if limits were strictly enforced for each country and punitive taxes imposed on those exceeding their quotas. Without TPQs, the environment would benefit further if a country kept well below its emissions quota. Adopt- ing the TPQ plan means that this benefit is lost because the right to this extra pollution is bought by another country.
Web Links:
• Counterbalance. <http://www.counterbalance.org> Contains summary of debate about the existence of God from the cosmologi- cal standpoint.
• Existence of God. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God> Detailed article presenting the classic arguments on both sides of the issue.
• The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe. <http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html> An academic paper em- ploying the cosmological argument for the existence of God.
• New Advent. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm> Detailed essay on a Roman Catholic Web site outlining the vari- ous proofs for the existence of God.
Further Reading:
Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. New ed. Routledge, 1991.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. Zonderan, 2004. Yandell, Keith. Philosophy of Religion: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge, 1999.
Emissions are a global problem. The emission of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, for example, affects the entire planet regardless of where the gas is produced. This validates the use of TPQs, which act to limit the total amount of each polluting gas globally. TPQs are much more effective than the alternative of taxing emis- sions, because rich companies or countries will be able to pay the tax and still pollute.
TPQs are tried and tested. The United States has used them successfully since they were introduced in 1990. Therefore, we have good reason to expect them to suc- ceed on a global scale.
Progress in the field of emission control is remarkably difficult because of the opposition from the industrial lobby, most notably in the United States, which sees such restrictions as harmful to its economy. TPQs are the one method of control acceptable to these lobby groups and, more significant, to the US government. As the world’s biggest polluter, the United States must be included in any meaningful treaty. Therefore, TPQs are the only practical way forward.
TPQs cause less damage to an economy than any other emission control regime. Individual companies and countries can trade TPQs on the free market until they have struck the right balance between the cost of paying to pollute and the cost of cleaning up their industry.
Stating that it does not matter where pollution is pro- duced is simplistic and completely untrue for many gases, which do affect the region in which they are created. Fur- thermore, to permit developing countries to industrial- ize, they have been exempted from the protocol. This seriously undermines its efficiency. Furthermore, if taxes on pollution were set high enough, big companies would stop polluting because it would be prohibitively expen- sive. In addition, the introduction of TPQs will make later reductions in global emissions much harder. Once trading in TPQs has started, countries that have bought extra emission rights would certainly not voluntarily give them up to help reduce global emissions further. TPQs have had some success in the United States, but they failed in Europe for two reasons. First, the European plans were poorly conceived, as was the Kyoto Protocol. Second, whereas the American solution to pollution was always trading emissions, the main European solution was, and still is, to produce new technology to clean the emissions. Extending the TPQ plan to the entire globe will slow the technological developments needed to reduce greenhouse gases.
The Kyoto Protocol lacks a comprehensive enforcement mechanism and is thus ineffective. In addition, assess- ing the effect that an individual country’s carbon “sink” is having on the atmosphere is impossible. This merely creates a loophole that allows a country to abuse the pro- tocol and produce more than its quota of gases.
TPQs will hit employment hard. Even developed coun- tries are not so rich that they can simply buy enough quotas to avoid pollution; neither can they afford to install the expensive cleaning technology. Growth will consequently decline and with that decline will come a drop in living standards in developed countries.
PROS CONS
Sample Motions:
This House would buy the right to pollute. This House supports tradable pollution quotas. This House believes that the Kyoto Protocol got it right.
Web Links:
• Environmental Protection Administration. <http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BPQXU/ $File/emissions_trading.pdfLeonardo Academy Inc.> Paper describing how emissions trading works.
12|The Debatabase Book