- + Zek Labevete joined The British Council
- + Tkd Kabel joined The British Council
- + Sd Aahava joined The British Council
- + Aromiatrefirm joined The British Council
- + Frirl Bafe joined The British Council
- + Unwinny Feenda joined The British Council
- + Allhadrs joined The British Council
- + Sergsander joined The British Council
- + Tucfagrurn joined The British Council
- + Mainoclaigott joined The British Council
- + Unlally joined The British Council
- + Cecymn Lam joined The British Council
- + Soyptodiese joined The British Council
- + Obliminia joined The British Council
- + Eraddichero joined The British Council
- + Vepenmums joined The British Council
- + Indervicurell joined The British Council
- + Tindionilla joined The British Council
- + Zhurapm joined The British Council
- + Loyadloni joined The British Council
- + Wribrachatima joined The British Council
- + Antoniapalkakhcq joined The British Council
- + Trainueanelve joined The British Council
- + Snods joined The British Council
- + Equaway joined The British Council
- + Optiovorur F joined The British Council
- + Exaps joined The British Council
- + Itatryplausty joined The British Council
- + Agadetino Mara joined The British Council
- + Sesindicsponi joined The British Council
EACH BUSINESS SECTOR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A GLOBAL UNIT WHEN BEING COUNTED FOR CO2 EMISSIONS.
Businesses go where their costs are lowest. When an industry is faced with a carbon tax in one country it will just move production abroad to circumvent that tax. Moreover, this means that emissions from products consumed in the first country count towards the emissions of the country the industry relocated to. Because business is becoming more global, each industry needs to be measured globally rather than nationally. This would prevent companies relocating to avoid regulation and they can be benchmarked against each other to measure their environmental performance.
Each business sector should be considered as a global unit when being counted for CO2 emissions.
Yes, because... Industry moves emissions offshore
Industry moves to where production is cheapest. If there begins to be taxes on carbon emissions then this will become a cost and part of the equasion in their deciding where to locate, or whether to relocate. Essentially they will simply move to avoid regulation if there are countries that are more lax either in its demands. This is always going to happen if a sector is not treated globally because it is in the interest of an individual country to attract industry along with the employment and tax revinues they bring. So there is bound to be a country that does not wish to tax or regulate CO2 emissions in order to gain for themselves.
Agreed but moving emissions offshore is a byproduct of moving production and operations offshore which generates significant amount of employment specially in the developing countries where these industries relocate. And its not as if in an industrialing world, there wont be local industries coming up in these countries.
ALternatively simply tabulating emissions by considering industries as a global event is a useless exercise as emissions are a very local phenomena. Some countries like USA and INDIA or China are so big that they are larger than several countries put together and regional variations occur.
Vote on this point: Industry moves emissions offshore
See history of changes to this point
Each business sector should be considered as a global unit when being counted for CO2 emissions.
No, because... This measure is less effective than one would expect
"Secondly, if you count and cap emissions of a business sector globally you actually encourage businesses to shift these global emissions to where it is cheapest to spew them"
If it costs the same globally it would not be cheaper to spew emissions here rather than there.
Your suggestion would cut down demand for Chinese products which would only give china more incentive to produce cheaply , which would mean more pollution.
Caps are specific, not indirect ways/means of getting pollution cuts and should be far more effective than the surreptitiously ban Chinese products plan.
First of all, multinationals have complex schemes for deciding where to operate and carbon tax is only one -usually small, seldom significant- among many factors considered in business relocation. Political and macroeconomic stability, market size, ease of doing business, transport infrastructure... all these count more than a potential carbon tax on decisions to relocate.
Secondly, if you count and cap emissions of a business sector globally you actually encourage businesses to shift these global emissions to where it is cheapest to spew them. And, my argument goes, counting emissions at a business sector level creates dilemmas over, e.g. how much should shipping be allowed to emit globally compared to the beverage industry. Does that matter?
Moreover, establishing a global cap on emissions for each multinational is not practical because some companies grow naturally while others die out. Deciding on a global cap per unit of output/ value added for a category of goods or services (that is what a business sector ultimately is) puts poor and less technologically advanced countries at a disadvantage far beyond problems with relocation.
I have a different suggestion: China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Half of its emissions are related to exports. Now think about European importers fo Chinese goods. Establish a carbon tariff, increase the prices of goods made in China with the cost of their carbon footprint (global or EU price level) and charge this to the final European user -if final consumption picks up the tab, which is the case with carbon taxes.
Opinions?
Vote on this point: This measure is less effective than one would expect
See history of changes to this point
Each business sector should be considered as a global unit when being counted for CO2 emissions.
No, because... counting in itself is not enough
Counting CO2 emissions globally is not enough, it could be considered a start but it really gets us no where. What is the use of simply counting the emissions of a business sector globally, it does nothing to reduce those emissions without something beyond the counting, either cost of CO2 credits or taxes on emissions.
Point 1. Industry moves emissions offshore
Industry moves to where production is cheapest. If there begins to be taxes on carbon emissions then this will become a cost and part of the equasion in their deciding where to locate, or whether to relocate. Essentially they will simply move to avoid regulation if there are countries that are more lax either in its demands. This is always going to happen if a sector is not treated globally because it is in the interest of an individual country to attract industry along with the employment and tax revinues they bring. So there is bound to be a country that does not wish to tax or regulate CO2 emissions in order to gain for themselves.
Agreed but moving emissions offshore is a byproduct of moving production and operations offshore which generates significant amount of employment specially in the developing countries where these industries relocate. And its not as if in an industrialing world, there wont be local industries coming up in these countries.
ALternatively simply tabulating emissions by considering industries as a global event is a useless exercise as emissions are a very local phenomena. Some countries like USA and INDIA or China are so big that they are larger than several countries put together and regional variations occur.
Point 1. This measure is less effective than one would expect
Multinationals have complex schemes for deciding where to operate and carbon tax is only one -usually small, seldom significant- among many factors considered in business relocation. Political and macroeconomic stability, market size, ease of doing business, transport infrastructure... all these count more than a potential carbon tax on decisions to relocate.
Moreover, counting emissions at a business sector level creates dilemmas over, e.g. how much should shipping be allowed to emit globally compared to the beverage industry. Business sectors are at different levels of development in different countries, some need to grow and others are at saturation. Few business sectors are global and deciding on an overall cap for e.g. aviation emissions
China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. But half of its emissions are related to exports. Establish a carbon tariff, increase the prices of goods made abroad with the cost of their carbon footprint (global or importer price level) and charge this to the final user -if final consumption pick up the tab, which is the case with carbon taxes.
"Secondly, if you count and cap emissions of a business sector globally you actually encourage businesses to shift these global emissions to where it is cheapest to spew them"
If it costs the same globally it would not be cheaper to spew emissions here rather than there.
Your suggestion would cut down demand for Chinese products which would only give china more incentive to produce cheaply , which would mean more pollution.
Caps are specific, not indirect ways/means of getting pollution cuts and should be far more effective than the surreptitiously ban Chinese products plan.
Point 2. counting in itself is not enough
Counting CO2 emissions globally is not enough, it could be considered a start but it really gets us no where. What is the use of simply counting the emissions of a business sector globally, it does nothing to reduce those emissions without something beyond the counting, either cost of CO2 credits or taxes on emissions.