ENFOQUES Y/O MODELOS SOBRE ADICCIÓN A INTERNET Dentro de los enfoques el primer autor que estableció criterios

Civil disobedience is the deliberate disobeying of a law to advance a moral principle or change government policy. Those who practice civil disobedience are willing to accept the consequences of their lawbreaking as a means of fur- thering their cause. Henry David Thoreau first articulated the tenets of civil disobedience in an 1849 essay, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.” He argued that when conscience and law do not coincide, individuals have the obliga- tion to promote justice by disobeying the law. Civil disobedience was a major tactic in the women’s suffrage movement, the campaign for the independence of India, the civil rights movement in the United States, and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa.

Civil Disobedience |53

Pros

Cons

Elections do not give the people sufficient opportu- nity to express their will. In certain circumstances civil disobedience is a powerful method of making the will of the public heard. If a law is oppressive it cannot be opposed in principle by obeying it in practice. It must be broken.

The “voice of the people” is heard in many ways. Elections take place regularly, and members of the public can write their local, state, or national representatives expressing their opinion. Legislators are there to represent and serve the people. Because citizens have many ways to express their views, civil disobedience is unnecessary. Protests can be made perfectly well without breaking the law. Civil disobedience has a history of overcoming oppres-

sion and unpopular policies where all other methods have failed. For example, Mohandas Gandhi’s civil dis- obedience was instrumental in winning liberty for India, and Martin Luther King’s tactics won basic rights for African Americans in the United States. In these cases no other avenue was open to express grievances.

Peaceful protest is quite possible in any society—to go further into actual lawbreaking is pointless. Civil disobe- dience can devolve into lawlessness. Indeed, it can be counterproductive by associating a cause with terror and violence.

In actual fact, the conflict with the authority gives any protest its power and urgency and brings an issue to a wider audience. The women’s suffrage movement in Brit- ain and the civil rights movement in the United States are both examples of an eventually successful campaign that won by its confrontation with authority, where more sedate methods would simply not have succeeded.

Too often this “productive violence” is directed against innocent members of the public or against the police, often causing serious injuries. No cause is worth the sac- rifice of innocent lives; protest must be peaceful or not at all.

sample motions:

This House supports civil disobedience. This House believes the ends justify the means. This House would break the law in a good cause.

Web Links:

Civil Disobedience—The History Of The Concept. <http://science.jrank.org/pages/8660/ •

Civil-Disobedience-History-Concept.html> Discusses famous advocates of civil disobedience.

Civil Disobedience Index. <http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/CDindex.html> Information on the history, •

theory, and practice of civil disobedience.

Research Institute on International Activism. <http://www.international.activism.uts.edu.au/conferences/civildis/fiedler.html> •

Essay arguing that civil disobedience is a basic right.

Further reading:

Arendt, Hannah. Crises of the Republic. Harvest Books, 1972.

Bedau, Hugo Adam. Civil Disobedience in Focus. Taylor & Francis, 2007. Thoreau, Henry David. Civil Disobedience and Other Essays. Dover, 1993.

Tracy, James. The Civil Disobedience Handbook: A Brief History and Practical Advice for the Politically Disenchanted. Manic D Press, 2001.

CLImAte ChAnge: reguLAtIons vs. mArket

meChAnIsm In deALIng WIth

Over the past 15 years most scientists and many politicians have come to believe that humankind is changing the world’s climate. This is often called “global warming,” and is blamed on the release of carbon gases into the air. This debate compares the two main ways that have been put forward for cutting carbon emissions: regulations and market mechanisms. Regulations would involve bringing in new government rules that companies and families have to fol- low. For example, regulations could set new standards for vehicle fuel economy or require companies and families to save energy by putting in green technologies, such as pollution filters, solar panels, more efficient heating systems, and low energy light bulbs. The other proposal is to put a price on carbon, so that it becomes expensive to release it into the air. This approach is called a market mechanism. Pricing carbon would give people and companies a strong reason to find ways of reducing their carbon emissions. There are two ways that a price could be put on carbon—a tax or a cap-and-trade system. A carbon tax would allow the government to charge people a sum of money for every ton of carbon they release into the air. A cap-and-trade system would set an overall limit on the amount of carbon that could be emitted each year. Companies would be given permits allowing them to release a certain amount of carbon into the air, and fined very heavily for exceeding their limit. Companies that could not reduce their emissions to the level allowed in their permit would have to buy permits in a carbon market. They would be buying from other companies that had successfully cut their emissions and so had spare permits to sell.

Pros

Cons

Market mechanisms put a cost on carbon emissions so that polluting becomes expensive. They will give a strong push to businesses and families to be more care- ful in their use of energy. Bringing in new technology to cut the amount of carbon their factories, vehicles, and homes put out will save them money. The more they cut emissions, the more they save (and the more profit companies will make).

We already have regulations to cut carbon emissions, so we do not need market methods. After all, businesses’ greed has led them to pour pollution into our air, so they are unlikely to stop unless the government makes them. There are good examples of successful regulation. California as well as some European governments have set standards for fuel efficiency and exhaust levels, suc- cessfully reducing the environmental impacts of vehicle fuels. We should aim to expand and tighten these exist- ing regulations rather than take a gamble on something untested.

The market will work better at a global level. Because each country generally sets its own regulations, pollu- tion limits and vehicle fuel standards differ. This makes it difficult and expensive for international business to follow different regulations. And as increased regulation impacts trade and economic growth, individual coun- tries (especially developing countries) may choose to set weak standards. Market methods are more likely to work across borders, linking every country into the same in- ternational system, as is already the case in global trade and finance. Developing states are more likely to accept a market system because they can profit from a carbon tax or from selling carbon permits.

Using the market sounds good in theory but it will not work in practice. There are many different types of car- bon emissions, and some damage to the climate much more than others. Allowing for these differences in a market system is hard, but regulations can be more flex- ible, targeting the worst types of emissions with tougher rules. Moreover, significant polluters such as China and India have less open economies than those of most West- ern countries. Consequently, a market system would not work equally across the world. Unless we put off dealing with climate change until all economies work the same way, regulation is the only means to make an immediate difference.

Climate Change: Regulations vs. Market Mechanism in Dealing With |55

Using the market will persuade people to choose greener ways of living. Regulations force people to do things against their will, which can be unfair and could make green ideas unpopular. Market mechanisms change the prices people pay but still allow them choices about how they live. A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would raise the cost of electricity and gasoline, thus encourag- ing (rather than forcing) many people to change their lifestyle. They may choose to live closer to where they work or to their children’s schools, take the bus or train rather than drive, vacation at home rather than abroad, or update their home heating system to one that uses less energy. Such changes will come quite quickly with mar- ket mechanisms, but regulations often take a long time to be implemented and effective. While tough standards generally apply only to new buildings, cars, or products, most people make do with what they already own for many years. This means it might take more than a de- cade after new rules are adopted for emissions to drop significantly.

Economists love the idea of market mechanisms but they do not understand ordinary people. Consumers are ac- tually not very sensitive to increased energy prices. Even if energy prices go up, they still have to cook and to light and heat their homes. So they will grumble about it but pay more rather than cutting the amount of energy they use. Similarly, if they need a car to go to work, they will not drive any less if fuel costs more. Instead they will cut back on other things, like vacations, clothes, or en- tertainment. Poor people with no spare money will end up suffering more than the rich do, whereas regulations will make everyone contribute to reducing emissions. In the long run, it might make sense to spend money mak- ing your house energy efficient or buying a more expen- sive but greener car, but the up-front cost of doing these things is too high for most people, even if they might recoup it in lower costs many years later. Governments will have to change the law if they want to make people to change their behavior.

Market solutions can take advantage of the fact that the cost of reducing carbon emissions is not the same every- where. Western cars, homes, and factories are often so efficient that reducing their carbon output by even a tiny amount would cost a huge sum of money. In contrast, the older technology in less developed countries is often much more polluting. Spending a little bit of money to update it would prevent a huge amount of carbon from being pumped out. Putting a price on carbon means that money will be spent where it has the greatest effect. This means we can tackle climate change more quickly and with less damage to the world economy than we can by using regulations. That market mechanisms are likely to move money from the rich world to the poor is a positive side effect of the system.

Regulations are the best way to make every country play its part in tackling climate change. While rich countries are the ones that have pumped the most carbon into the atmosphere, market mechanisms will allow them to avoid their moral duty to make the most changes. A carbon market would allow them to buy a permit from a poorer country rather than change their own ways. In exchange, the developing country would not even have to actually reduce its own carbon output—it can merely promise not to increase it as much as it might have. Giv- en the weak government and corruption in some devel- oping countries, many people wonder how much some of these promises would be worth.

The European trading system has run into problems, but this is primarily because politicians have interfered to protect industries in their own countries. Such med- dling is even more common with government regula- tions, which often change so quickly that business cannot plan properly for the future. The EU is already improving its carbon trading scheme, and we can learn to design a global system based on their experience. For example, a smaller number of permits can be issued, and auctioned off to the highest bidders rather than given for free to old and inefficient industries. On the other hand, we could choose to implement a carbon tax instead, thus reliably putting a cost on pollution and ensuring that emissions are cut.

Instituting regulations is more reliable than trying to put a price on carbon emissions. The European carbon trad- ing system has not worked well. The price for permits to release carbon into the air was extremely volatile before declining to such a low level that it is unlikely to have any impact on companies’ behavior. Regulations bet- ter ensure that change takes place because they clearly specify the actions businesses must take. This allows companies to plan properly and encourages research and development of green technologies.

Pros Cons

We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in the release of large amounts of carbon into the air. Unless ordinary people can be convinced to change their behavior, we will never be able to tackle climate change. It is thus fair to use market methods that raise the price of energy to achieve this goal. Ways can be found to ensure that no one suffers under this new sys- tem. For example, other taxes can be cut to compensate for a carbon tax. Furthermore, using regulations to deal with emissions raises the cost of energy and fuel. Produc- ers pass the increased costs of regulation on to consum- ers, and we have to pay more one way or another.

Putting a price on carbon unfairly punishes ordinary families. Making people pay more to heat their homes, cook meals, drive their cars, and so on will push many into poverty. We already pay high taxes, and this is just another way politicians have found to get their hands into our wallets. By contrast, big business makes plenty of profit and can afford to spend some of it on meeting new emissions regulations.

Market systems are easy to understand and run efficient- ly because everyone acts out of self-interest. Regulation means government control, and that means plenty of bureaucracy and red tape. A huge, complicated, costly system will be created to manage any new emission rules and standards. This not only raises taxes but also hurts the economy as business struggles to cope with the regu- lations. And because governments are so bad at regula- tion, the chances are that the system will fail to cut emis- sions significantly. Companies may cheat on the rules, realizing correctly that they are unlikely to get caught, and even if they are, any fines will probably be smaller than the cost of obeying the regulations.

Regulations are the best way to cut carbon emissions be- cause, unlike market methods, they can be introduced with public support. Opinion polls show that people un- derstand and back regulations like fuel efficiency rules, home energy standards, and so on. By contrast, carbon taxes are very unpopular because people do not trust the politicians who want to introduce them. Because cap- and-trade systems are so difficult to explain to ordinary consumers, the public will not back them. Moreover, running an international cap-and-trade system would require a big bureaucracy to enforce the emissions limits and prevent cheating. But unlike a system of national regulations, a cap-and-trade bureaucracy would be an international body, and thus be seen as a threat to our national independence.

sample motions:

This House believes that market methods are better than regulations in cutting carbon emissions. This House believes the price is right.

This House believes in market solutions to the problem of climate change. This House would rather put its faith in the market than in bureaucrats.

Web Links:

BBC News. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4919848.stm> Article explaining the carbon trade. •

Climate Ark: The Lincoln Plan. <http://www.climateark.org/lincoln_plan> Accessible review of the issue. •

Friends of the Earth. <http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/factsheets/energy_climate_change.pdf> Overview of the topic from a •

broadly pro-regulation perspective.

Further reading:

Bayon, Ricardo, Amanda Hawn, and Katherine Hamilton. Voluntary Carbon Markets: An International Business Guide to What They

Are and How They Work. Earthscan Publications, 2007.

Houser, Trevor, et al. Leveling the Carbon Playing Field: International Competition and US Climate Policy Design. Peterson Institute, 2008.

Labatt, Sonia, and Rod R. White. Carbon Finance: The Financial Implications of Climate Change. Wiley, 2007.

