US to Have a National Climate Registry; Will India & China Follow?

Environment Protection Agency has announced that the US government would maintain a registry of all carbon emissions produced from some 13,000 high polluting industries. Companies emitting more than 25,000 metric tonnes of carbon emissions yearly will be required to report to this registry.

The plan to have a climate registry has been doing the rounds since 2007 and although a Climate Registry exists covering various American, Canadian and Mexican states, this would be much broader and mandatory in nature. Terming the decision as ‘critical step towards protection of health and environment’, the  that emissions data is essential in order to tackle the problem of climate change. The registry would require the companies to report their methane emissions also, another major greenhouse gas. 

United States is not bound by any international treaty to maintain a national climate registry unlike the Annex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol. Under the Kyoto Protocol, the developed nations (which ratified the treaty) were mandated to create and maintain an annual climate registry so as to monitor any increase or decrease in the carbon emissions and to determine, on the basis of tonnes of emissions, the number of emission allowances and carbon credits the countries (or the companies) are entitled to. The United States is a signatory to the treaty but has not ratified the same.

Imposing Carbon Tariff On Chinese Goods Disastrous

Unilateral decisions by Western countries to impose carbon tariffs on China could lead to disastrous consequences. According to a report published investment bank CIBC World Markets, US and Canada are considering carbon tax on Chinese made goods in an effort to force China to curtail its growing emissions. The report comes out amidst an EU warning to US and China to cut their carbon emissions.

“As the OECD countries begin to impose greater economic sacrifices on their own economies as part of decarbonization efforts, tolerance for the carbon practices of its trading partners, or more precisely the lack thereof, will diminish dramatically,” they write.

“Already Europe, which is well ahead of North America in terms of domestic carbon pricing, is talking about a carbon tariff that it can apply to imports from countries that don’t play by the same carbon rules.”

While the possible reaps of such a step could be beneficial for the environment there is no doubt that it would generate a diplomatic tornado too. Although China is the largest emitter in the world still its per capita emissions are lower than most industrialized nations and Chinese officials won’t miss this point when they challenge any attempts of imposing taxes on their exports.

Before US (and other industrialized nations) talk of taxing Chinese goods it should take steps to curb emissions at home. The Bush Administration doesn’t seem to be much serious in its efforts to control the emissions. Recently EPA issued new sets of standards for ozone however, these standards were weakened as President Bush once again ignored the advice from scientists. After intervention from Vice President Cheney, EPA rejected California’s proposal to introduce tougher vehicular emissions standards.

Now if US cannot clean up its own act it has no right to ask others to do so. The intention behind such a proposal is no doubt benignant but the very foundations of US’ arguments aren’t that strong given what’s going on back home. Instead of directly imposing taxes on the Chinese goods, the US government (and others) should encourage its citizens to buy goods from countries with cleaner track record as far as emissions go.

Instead of slapping taxes, the government should make it mandatory for the manufacturing company to disclose the amount of emissions produced in the production of every article, a practice very well taken up by chocolate giant Cadbury. This would give the power to the common people and the consumer sentiment towards Chinese-made products is well known. Hence in order to avoid any diplomatic row the Western governments should avoid taking any direct step on this issue.

“This issue would be politically very divisive, you’d create a lot of political problems if certain groups of countries were to take these actions”, Pachauri told journalists at the European Parliament.

Pachuri rightly points out that any ‘misadventure’ regarding this issue would open yet another front in our fight against Climate change – the political one.

US Administration Lacks The Will To Cut CO2 Emissions

One of the first thing Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did after winning elections was that he ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which his predecessor John Howard refused to do. Kyoto Protocol came into force in Australia on March 11. The Australian government has committed itself to a Renewable Energy Target and seeks to produce 20% of the total energy from renewable sources by the year 2020. The Department of Climate Change hopes to launch an emissions trading by 2010 which would further assist the government to reach its target.

US Administration seems to be moving in a completely opposite direction

Environmental Protection Agency recently ordered that 9 billion gallons of ethanol be blended with gasoline this year. Most of that will be ethanol made from corn; last year, the U.S. produced 5.8 billion gallons of the stuff. This means that there will be more corn cultivation in states like Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin and a subsequent expansion of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

At a time when inflation is high and food prices have risen sharply the US government is finding it difficult to strike a balance between production of biofuel crops and cereal crops.

In addition, the Environment Protection Agency seems to have halted its efforts to protect the environment. Late last year EPA officials proposed regulations which would have achieved CO2 reductions faster than recently passed legislation requiring improvements in automobile fuel economy. The proposed plan never reached the Capitol Hill.

Curiously the officials have now stopped working on CO2 regulation of automobiles thus violating the directives of the Supreme Court. Also, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson recently refused green light to California’s plan to impose tougher emission limits on car manufacturers. The scientists advised Johnson that California’s plan was based on facts and was meritorious.

But Johnson blasted California’s plan saying the Bush Administration’s plan was enough to tackle the problem of vehicle emissions. Johnson overruled experts’ advise after automakers met Vice President Dick Cheney and a Chrysler executive told EPA in a letter why California shouldn’t be allowed to go ahead with its proposed plan.

This is the first time in 37-years of the Clean Air Act that California hasn’t been allowed to set its own air pollution policies. The plan would have achieved better results four years faster than than the federal bill.

Australia & US: Stark contrast in climate policies

Both Australia & US have some of the highest per capita emissions in the world and were ranked 54 and 55 respectively in this year’s Climate Change Performance Index. Yet what the new Australian government has done in its first 100 days could not be done by many US administrations. It is noteworthy that United States got a zero for climate policy in the CCPI.

Although many experts claim that the Labor party in Australia will now face major economic & political hurdles in its endeavor to meet the Kyoto targets still it is commendable that the government hasn’t back down, whereas many in the US administration are still busy listening to the automakers instead of the scientists.

America, A Hostage To The Greedy Corporate Giants?

Capitalism generally refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are all or mostly privately owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as “legal persons” or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money.

[Wikipedia]

Does that mean making profits at the expense of common people, at the expense of social well welfare?

These “legal persons” or corporations have no right to influence matters of social welfare & governance. But the big corporate in the US are doing exactly that. Why these privately owned companies should be allowed to ‘buy stakes’ in the government? Why should their money be allowed to influence the policies of the government? Is the government to be blamed since these businessmen only mean ‘business’? These businessmen have infiltrated the government to such a level that the national interest seems to be the last thing in their minds.

Why is it so that that only a few companies are allowed to bid for the reconstruction work in Iraq & Afghanistan? These companies have either contributed to the Democrats or the Republicans in the recent past – with some contributions amounting up to a million dollars. [Rebuilding Iraq -- The Contractors]

Isn’t it an ‘auction’ of the government policies? Doesn’t that mean that the government would listen to the one with the greatest wealth? Why should they the social welfare of the people be a hostage to the greedy intentions of these corporations?

Why was the decision to block California’s attempt to impose tough emission limits on car manufacturers taken even when the experts from the Environment Protection Agency were in favor of it? Why did EPA’s chief Stephen Johnson overrule his experts’ advice even though there was nothing wrong with proposal submitted by California?

EPA staff members told the Los Angeles Times that the agency’s head, the Bush appointee Stephen Johnson, ignored their conclusions and shut himself off from consultation in the month before the announcement. He then informed them of his decision and instructed them to provide the legal rationale for it, they said.

“California met every criteria … on the merits,” an anonymous member of the EPA staff told the Times. “The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years … We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts.”

The reason – car representatives met Vice President Dick Cheney to put forward their case as to why California shouldn’t be allowed to go ahead with it plan to tough emission limits. Cheney accused of blocking Californian bid to cut car fumes

The tragic death of seventeen year-old Nataline Sarkisyan is another example of common man being crushed under the greedy ambitions of these corporations. These industries only like to see their profits swelling, social welfare isn’t a priority to them. Then why are these companies being allowed to carry on with their businesses? Why these companies aren’t forced to be responsible to the common man, to the voter in addition to their stakeholders?

Capitalism was meant to create a free market, a system in which the power isn’t concentrated in the hands of a few. But today the real power to make, alter & manipulate government policies lies in the hand of a few wealthy people who put their materialistic aspirations ahead of the social wellbeing of the common man. The question here isn’t about the usefulness or success of Capitalism but about the effects it has on democracies when the wrong people are given the power to use it as a tool for their personal gains.