To pollute or not to pollute, that is the question. Strange as it may seem, the answer does not lie in the Kyoto Protocol.

Human activities create greenhouse gases (GHG). They are generated by the way we light, heat, and cool our buildings, transport and feed ourselves, and produce economic wealth through our industrial systems – in short, the way we abuse fossil fuels.

The Kyoto Protocol seeks a reduction – within an achievable time frame – of greenhouse gas production to 1990 levels, but also allows the purchase of emission credits to permit a country or a company to keep pumping out excessive amounts of carbon dioxide.

Emission trading is defined as a market mechanism that allows GHG emitters (countries, companies or facilities) to buy emission credits from or sell these credits to other emitters. Emission trading is expected to bring down the costs of meeting emission targets by allowing those who can achieve reductions less expensively to sell excess reductions (e.g. reductions in excess of those required under some regulation) to those for whom achieving reductions is more costly.

The value of emission credit trading schemes is currently estimated at $30 billion, and is expected to reach $40 billion by the year 2010, perhaps sooner.

By the way, emission trading goes by a host of different monikers – cap and trade, carbon trading, carbon offsetting – all offering the illusion we can buy our way to becoming carbon neutral.

It all smacks of a scheme by industry and government to create a market for something which was previously worthless. There is no constraint on carbon dioxide production until a government creates one, and it is apparent many companies not only favour caps, but also want to make a buck in the trading business. So guess who will be the ones influencing just what kind of caps are created? Even the Wall Street Journal calls carbon limiting “cap and charade.”

If the objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce the production of global warming-causing carbon dioxide gases, why then allow a country or a company to keep emitting them at unsustainable and climate destroying levels?

Emission trading was the loophole to get country buy-in. It worked – 169 countries signed on to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, aimed at combating global warming. Ironically, it was pushed into existence at the behest of the United States, one of only two developed countries that refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol and at the most recent G-8 meeting spoke out against a global carbon emissions trading plan. Go figure!

The Kyoto Protocol has begun laying the foundation for a completely new global marketplace in greenhouse gases. Six greenhouse gases emitted from industrial, agricultural, and consumer sources: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) will be traded interchangeably (as carbon dioxide equivalents [CO2e]) in the brokerage houses and trading floors of the world markets.

These “environmental markets” are being left to the private sector and government institutions to design, with little or no public consultation or accountability. “It is big polluters, after all, who tend to be in the best position to hire carbon consultants, liaise with officials, and pay money to get projects registered with the United Nations carbon market,” says Larry Lohmann, editor of Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change, Privatisation and Power and a member of the Durban Group for Climate Justice.

Ask yourself this question: Can the free market system that created the problem in the first place solve the problem it has created? Can we even trust it to do so?

Curtis White, writing in the current Orion Magazine, says “trading carbon emission credits and creating markets in greenhouse gases as a means of controlling global warming is not a way of saying we’re so confident in the strength of the free market system that we can even trust it to fix the problems it creates.

“No, it’s a way of saying that we are so frightened by the prospect of stepping outside of the market system on which we depend for our national wealth, our jobs, and our sense of normalcy that we will let the logic of that system try to correct its own excesses even when we know we’re just kidding ourselves,” adds White, a teacher at Illinois State University.

White says the Kyoto Protocol is little more than a complex scheme to create a giant international market in pollution.

“Acceptance of [the carbon trading provisions of the Kyoto Protocol] represents an article of faith, faith in the free market, and faith in the process of globalisation. It rests on an ideological stance,” says Dr. Mick Kelly, a researcher with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

“We’re taking the world’s most momentous challenging environmental problem and expecting the market to solve the problem the market has created,” says Daphne Wysham, a director with the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, a branch of the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank.

Wysham said her group advocates a carbon tax on emissions to reduce the incentive for companies to pollute, instead of carbon trading programs, which she said offers no incentives to reduce polluting, since companies can simply buy credits to offset their pollution.

David Morris, co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, is blunt in his criticism of carbon trading. Writing in a recent AlterNet column, Morris says: “Carbon trading is not a promising strategy. Its costs outweigh its benefits. We don’t need carbon trading to reduce carbon emissions. Indeed, it is likely that we will reduce carbon emissions much more without carbon trading.”

Kevin Smith is a researcher with Carbon Trade Watch, a project of the Transnational Institute that studies the impacts of carbon trading on society and the environment. He is also the author of The Carbon Neutral Myth – Offset Indulgences for your Climate Sins.

Smith compares emission credits to the condolences which medieval sinners bought from the Catholic Church.

“The sale of offset indulgences is a dead-end detour off the path of action required in the face of climate change,” says Smith. “Offset schemes are shifting the focus of action about climate change on lifestyles, detracting from the local participation, and movement building that is critical to the realization of genuine social change.”

The idea of emission credits calls to mind the image of the little boy who whistled to frighten away the ghosts as he walked past the graveyard and pretended he wasn’t scared. Whistling will not eliminate our greenhouse gas ghosts.

Climate change is a very scary prospect. We need real actions to shrink GHG emissions, not ways to continue to produce them. We need to get on with decreasing our personal and corporate carbon emissions and creating climate-friendly economies and we need government regulations and incentives to assist us to do so.

We don’t need delaying tactics that create a new cash cow while exploiting our guilt about the state of our environment. We don’t need an excuse for inaction.

The air, water, and soil of Earth are the commons of its citizens. Corporations that take from the commons or pollute into the commons should pay for that privilege, and not rely on buying their way out.

RESOURCES – Since carbon trading is a contentious and important issue, I have prepared an extensive list of sources for readers who wish to know more.

Carbon Taxes vs. Emissions Trading: What’s the difference and which is better?

Responding to climate change – regulated and voluntary actions, including trading schemes.

The Carbon Buster’s Home Energy Handbook: Slowing Climate Change and Saving Money (2007) by Godo Stoyke, published by New Society Publishers.

Peter Barnes, co-founder of Working Assets Long Distance and Credit Card Services, has written Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons. He proposes an innovative way to limit the use of scarce commons, charge rent, and pay dividends to everyone.

Step It Up 2007 is calling for a day of action on climate change on April 14th.

The David Suzuki organization provides the answer to the question: What is a carbon offset?

On Your Mark, Offset, Go! – Perhaps Eric Carlson, executive director of Carbonfund, said it best: “There’s no definition of what a carbon offset is. It’s a little bit of a Wild West out there. Is this thing real? Is it good?”

Carbon Fund.org – toward a Zero Carbon world

Carbon Offset equals Carbon Upset – that’s the opinion of Rising Tide.

European Union Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

The Global Hub for Carbon Commerce

Emissions Trading (Britain)

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Emissions Trading page) http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php and http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/2880.php

Clean Development Mechanism CDM page

Point Carbon is the leading provider of independent analysis, forecasting, market
intelligence, and news for the power, gas and carbon emissions markets.

Climate Care is the trading name of Climate Care Trust Limited. It does not have any shareholders. Climate Care pays a fixed royalty of 10% of annual turnover to Climate Care Ltd – a separate company that has provided the Trust with financial and management resources over the years. Climate Care Ltd sits in a wider group called CO2.org – a company whose corporate goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. It sits alongside two other companies – Biojoule Ltd and Electric Field Ltd – that have been set up to develop renewable energy businesses using energy crops.

Eco Business Links Environmental Directory Carbon Offsetting page.

Terrapass helps you undo your contribution to global warming.

Airportwatch - Green Skies: Aviation Emissions and Climate Change - a return flight from Vancouver to Seoul, South Korea creates 2.33 tonnes of CO2. According to Terrapass, the 10,185-mile round-trip flight generates 3,972 pounds of CO2.

The International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) is a non-profit organization created in June 1999 to establish a functional international framework for trading greenhouse gas emission reductions.

The CarbonNeutral Company - CarbonNeutral® is the leading branded standard for voluntary action on climate change. CarbonNeutral status can be applied to almost anything – entire companies, events, products, services, etc. It represents the point at which greenhouse gas emissions have been assessed, reduced where possible, and the remaining non-reducible emissions offset through high quality renewable energy, energy-efficiency, or forestry projects. This status is backed up by a standard – The CarbonNeutral Protocol and an independent audit process that assesses our application of the standard.

Carbon Clear – Gifts and products to fight greenhouse gas emissions and climate change by investing in projects that reduce global greenhouse gases.

World Land Trust – Offset your emissions.

GHGm is pre-qualified by Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada to validate and verify greenhouse gas reduction projects.

Offsetters.ca – Climate neutral travel and living

Cooldrivepass.com is a cost effective, simple, but worthy method to reduce the negative impacts of driving on the climate.

Driveclean.ca.gov is a zero or near zero emission vehicle guide produced by the California Air Resources Board.

Michael Jessen is an environmental consultant who specializes in helping individuals, businesses and communities make sustainable environmental decisions. He can be reached by telephone at 250-229-5632. His business Zero Waste Solutions has an award-winning web site.