Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Audrey Savage & Jordan Ball - The Ethical Merits of Cap and Trade (THURS)
Cap and trade is defined as "the is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants." While cap and trade has shown to be successful in reducing emissions and company costs overall, it also raises some important ethical questions that should be addressed. Debate over whether lowering emissions is necessary due to the uncertainties associated with global warming will be ignored for this paper. We will focus, rather, on the ethical merit of emissions trading as a method for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This will include discussing the ethics of the alternative methods, such as voluntary reduction, taxes, and economic incentives. While these alternative methods are considered economically inefficient, are they any more ethically sound than emissions trading? Cap and trade essentially quantifies and puts a dollar value on the environment, allowing some to argue that the system in fact allows corporations the right to "pay to pollute." This paper will also look at the ethical implications of this for the environment, for people, and for the future. We will argue that cap and trade is an ethically dubious system, at least in its current form.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Which world view does cap and trade fall under? Which should our laws and regulations fall under?
ReplyDeleteYou say, "Cap and trade essentially quantifies and puts a dollar value on the environment, allowing some to argue that the system in fact allows corporations the right to "pay to pollute." This paper will also look at the ethical implications of this for the environment, for people, and for the future." Can commodification of pollution lead to a problem of its own?
ReplyDeleteEmissions are unfortunately part of the industrial system as it stands. Can the utilitarian principal be argued for this? In addition, how would the libertarian view dissect this? Further, I think that portraying a cost-effective and value-effective analysis would be very telling of the actions of cap and trade.
ReplyDeleteWhat existed before cap and trade? Were there any regulations? If not the best possible, is it least the lesser of former evils that existed prior to it which still allow the industry, which we heavily rely on, to function?
ReplyDeletePutting a price on something always complicates things. How do we decide what is more important, improving the environment or people's freedoms? Is setting a limit on pollution and improving the environment worth putting a price on pollution and only allowing the rich to pollute while the poor who can not afford alternative ways suffer?
ReplyDeleteAre you going to bring in the experience from business trip at Chicago Climate exchange experience this year into this paper? Like the political uncertainty in Washington that causes the decreasing in volume of Cap and trade sold on the exchange market that could destroy the CCX as a support for the "ethically dubious"?
ReplyDeleteDo you plan to address any of the problems cap and trade policy has created in Europe? Cap and trade has caused problems such as: driving up prices of electricity, layoffs by employers looking to save money that they have lost due to cap and trade, etc. These practices have obvious environmental and ethical implications. Do you think this serves as part of a reason for the United States not to adopt this practice?
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic, what affect does the cap and trade system have on the implementation of a universal land ethic? If money is the only incentive for companies to change their actions, doesn't this disregard people's moral obligation to the environment? Using a utilitarian approach however, doesn't the effectiveness of the cap and trade system outweigh this problem? It would be interesting to see this conflict resolved.
ReplyDeleteWill you discuss the issue of equity? Cap and trade has historically caused an unequal distribution of pollution around the world. Is this unequal distribution fair?
ReplyDeleteBasic economics is not based on ethics. Looking at the citizen vs. consumer argument people even want 2 different things. How can anything not be looked at for a monetary value when thats all this country essentially relies on? more speicifically cap and trade? they used the system as a way of selling pollution rights, thinking that it would reduce polltion. Should rights of the smaller less polluting companies be able to be traded, when the larger companies know that they are polluting more and essentially hurting people and the environment?
ReplyDeleteIs the organization more concerned with minimizing costs to firms rather than maximizing environmental gains?
ReplyDeleteCap and trade creates a market system for regulation. What are the implications of cap and trade if it is realized that cap levels need to be lower than they are initially set at?
ReplyDeleteHow are cost benfit and value effective analyses used in deciding is cap and trade are a viable solution? Who decides the goals and alternative means for the CBA?
ReplyDelete