Carbon trading and gas emission from firm house gas play a significant role in climate
change. However, a lot of concerns have been raised over the impacts these gases on the climate
and what policies should be laid to the specific market to lower emissions. Most people are
afraid that carbon trading will set their wealthy free to escape their responsibilities. Whereas,
others fear that the price of the natural environment will rise. Responsible authorities have been
questioned on distributional justice behind trade emissions. This paper takes note of significant
concerns on the effects, whether positive or negative impacts of carbon market have on the
Various objections based on moral and ethical view has been pointed on carbon trading,
and we see that minimizing waste and funding climate motives to more impoverished nation’s
fight emissions are among the vital moral virtues to be laid. We can see that many countries have
implemented cap-and-trade systems to regulate harmful pollution gases such as carbon dioxide.
According to Cadez and Czerny (2016), pollution undermines the sense of moral stigma as it is a
CARBON TRADING RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE 2
global responsibility to prevent it. Recently we saw the senate in the USA blocking legislation
act for the emission cap to be reduced by 80%. China has also plotted emission trading in its five
provinces and eight big cities to reduce the acidic rain for future benefits. This paper will also
focus on how the carbon trading policy regulations will be a suitable response to climate change.
Why Carbon trading is appropriate Response
To protect the environment
Carbon trading through the cap-and-trade policy will immensely control and limit
pollution of the environment. This is done by reducing the pollution cap from year to year. From
history, in 2008-2012, the reduced emission was 5%. The cap for 2012-2020 emission reduction
is set to be at least 20% as compared to the 1992 cap levels. In this case, we see that this policy
provides certainty of specified target emissions to be met at a particular period. Carbon trading
sets price fluctuation to regulate emissions; an actual price will arise when the level of emissions
is below the business level, this will make companies reduce the emissions because of high tax
permits and may find it more expensive to purchase allowances from other firms, forcing them to
reduce the carbon emission (Fawcett & Parag, 2017). Reduced carbon emission leads to a
healthy and clean environment.
Different carbon trade schemes ensure that waste from firms is minimized; this involves
firms economizing their emissions. The market price is set to ensure that companies are
rewarded and penalized at the same time if they make reductions or fail, respectively. Carbon
taxes provide an economic incentive for companies seeking abatement opportunities to minimize
waste (Fawcett & Parag, 2017).
Source of Revenue to the Government
First world countries have improvised innovative technology and advanced systems to set
legal measures on firms that emit gases. The government, through relevant authorities has
auctioned their permits to firms by compensating low-income households and providing funds to
programs that advocate climate. By investing in these programs, the government will collect
fiscal revenues that can be used to run other environmental activities.
Consequently, the firms through this policy tend to win the freedom of using any
appropriate methods to regulate and reduce the emissions. Relatively, the government is always
aware of the more effective ways that are costly to reduce the emissions that the firm or
individual may not be knowledgeable, but it will consider the firm or individuals to make their
own choices, which may accompany by mistakes (Chen et al., 2016). Environmental groups will
purchase allowances and retire them to prevent firms from using them to pollute the
environment. The non-government organization may choose to tighten the cap. Precisely, will
CARBON TRADING RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE 3
offer individuals opportunity by forcing the firms to reduce emissions than the government’s
Creation of a bigger and more efficient Carbon Market
Different states employ techniques and instruments called emission trading systems to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This system will buy permits from the government and trade
with them to other firms. However, more than two emission trading systems can merge to create
a broader carbon market to the world. This supply of carbon means it will be cheaper to open up
more emission reduction (Liu et al., 2015). From this perspective, socio-economic benefits such
as clean air improved resource efficiency, which will enhance energy, security, and job creations
to society. For this reason, the desired environment outcome will be more appealing, and after
that, long term signals for business and investments will take place.
Why not an appropriate response
It is Anti-Democratic
In the emission markets, both demand and supply have the incentive to conceal from the
public on reducing the emissions. We see that consumers who are buyers snap cheap pollution
rights; on the other hand, suppliers are on the verge of making flaggy money. In this case, every
party will get away with it because of inadequate and inadequate measurement and
enforcements. But the question which remains unanswered of who is going to monitor the rise in
public concern on climate change? According to Kyoto (2013), consumers charged for emission
permits generators have taken it at a low price or remarkably free. For this sake, the world is at
risk from climate change.
Squanders Resources and Ingenuity on Wrong things
It is not economical but a waste of resources for objecting emission trading for the wrong
objectives and goals. Most bureaucracies are created to monitor and certify millions of separate
carbon cuts. In this case, a vast of bright technical scholars invents ways to achieve those cuts
affordably to save the resources at large. For example, Rhodia firm in Francs invested $15
million to make acidic acid to destroy nitrous oxide. The firm further produced $ 1 billion in UN
approved carbon credits for sale to pollute industrialized nations. In the end, we discovered about
310 tons of carbon used to burn 1 tone of the compound, what a waste (Liu et al., 2015).
It cooperates with positive Remedies to Global Warming
To support this argument against carbon trading, the Bhilangana River in India was used
as an example. Farmers use the water from this river to irrigate rice, wheat, and vegetables. But
this projected is interfered by the new hydroelectric project that is designed to power the heavy
industry in India. Before that, there was a low carbon system of agriculture in India, but with the
launch of this hydroelectric power project, farmers have been forced to leave the valley losing
livelihood and knowledge in modern technology (Begg et al., 2015). A question of if carbon
trading is there to support the villagers on remedies and solutions to global warming; to answer
this question, it is contrary that carbon trading helps the hydropower firm and has employed
experts to argue that their dam will reduce carbon emission that would have been the case if it
had not been constructed. It is evident that emission trading obscures the real remedy and
CARBON TRADING RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE 4
solutions to global heat. According to Liu et al. (2015), forests in less industrialized nations can
be saved from deforestation and burning activities instead, burn them into innovative zones for
carbon credits. In this case, local people should be respected by not evicting them from forests or
employing them into carbon productions. Instead, deploy them to forest areas so as they can save
the forests and moderate climate effects.
Carbon Trading Convert charged permits to Free
Carbon trading permits people to pollute the environment as long as they settle that
financial fee. But this is a risk and big mistake ever made. Emission of harmful gases from the
greenhouse is very wrong, and a hefty fine should punish every firm that emits gas. Lohmann
(2006) argues that we should not give up distinguishing between the penalty and fee easily for
despoiling the environment. He suggests that a price should accompany emitting gases,
especially on carbon dioxide emissions. It is because of cumulative damage that is affecting the
climate, and a carbon trading system of taxes should be allowed to prevent this damage without
criminalizing emission activity and imposing fines.
Carbon trading is based on Faith and not Experience
Emission trading cases are majorly based on lofty abstractions. According to Cadez &
Czerny (2016), markets are the best ways of allocating optimal resources without wasting
resources to keep many people happy as always. For religious faith, such compliments are
enough to make you cry. This is a clear fact that a crisis response that is harmful to human life
should not be supported by faith but instead needs to be grounded in a sober review of historical
experience to understand the problem deeper. It is evident that prices can do many things but
cannot precisely solve the issues that require structural change in modern life.
It is aimed at the Wrong Objectives
Emission trading is intended for the wrong target that does not address global warming.
The main goal and objective include recognition of industrial society's energy. Facilitating the
transport and housing system, this should be targeted and addressed. Instead of being directed to
those goals that keep the wheels on the fuel industry of the fossils. Consequently, emission
trading tends to allocate short-term emission budgets that are cheap so that they can make
business with generous industries.
Carbon Markets as a Loophole
Carbon exchanging enables created nations to lessen discharges while moving the
decrease errand to developing nations. Balancing CO 2 outflows is fundamental to this element of
carbon markets. Counterbalancing is a release and an unjustified type of alleviation that
undermines the vital undertaking of deserting extraction of the fossil fuel in the north, where
emission reduction is of political significance. In Australia, international trade is required to
begin in 2015, and up to half of the retirement advantages can emerge out of worldwide loaning,
and the utilization of local carbon offsets is boundless (Cadez & Czerny, 2016). The more
significant part of the approved universal credits began in the United States, and similar
advances went to EU ETS organizations. As a rule, Australia’s way to deal with regulating
carbon offsets depends on a national protection program to reduce emissions outside the fossil
fuel segment, especially in the earthbound area. In New Zealand, never-ending claims have
CARBON TRADING RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE 5
ended the carbon trade. In California, it is intended to bring the province of ETS to REDD pay,
as per the convention of redistributing obligation regarding emission reductions in parts of the
southern side of the equator.
The principal points to outline are relatively concern and recommendations about global
climate change concerning carbon trading. Various policies triggered by a scientific debate on
climate change in context with the causes and possible solutions to humankind. Different actions
have been developed to deal with these carbon markets. Accounting and implications research
has been satisfied to imagine new innovative technology and modern technology to deal with
uncertainty along with variable suggestions on what should be done, improvised, and not to be
done to balance a clean environment for all people. Particular debates and meetings between the
scientists and environmentalists should be triggered to start a conversation over the best
strategies to tackle global climate change without necessarily causing any effects to the people in
the specific locality. Several challenges and limitations are accompanied by carbon trading, and
most of them have a total negative to a man. Both the indigenous species are affected. Mass
water storage such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, which serve as the all-time source of water for
both human beings and animals, will be great is polluted. The most affected people will be the
next generation as the current production may assume to survive on the stored water in their
From the study, I highly recommend that non-government organizations such
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Nature Conservancy should be granted
permits and legal laws on regulation and environmental protection. Yes, the government may
have those authorities, but it will be hard for its officers to monitor every activity on the globe.
With the non-governmental organizations will be able to inspect the human activities every hour
because they do it voluntarily. The revenues collected from the fined firms should be utilized in
the conservation of the environment than the funds being stolen by the government officials.
CARBON TRADING RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE 6
Begg, K., Van der Woerd, F. and Levy, D. (Eds) (2015) The Business of Climate Change:
Corporate Responses to Kyoto (London: Greenleaf).
Cadez, S., & Czerny, A. (2016). Climate change mitigation strategies in carbon-intensive
firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4132-4143.
Chen, G., Wiedmann, T., Wang, Y., & Hadjikakou, M. (2016). Transnational city carbon
footprint networks–Exploring carbon links between Australian and Chinese
cities. Applied energy, 184, 1082-1092.
Fawcett, T., & Parag, Y. (2017). An introduction to personal carbon trading. In Personal Carbon
Trading (pp. 329-338). Routledge.
Kyoto, K. (2013). The problem with reporting pollution allowances: reporting is not the problem,
Critical Perspectives on Climate Change, 7(6), pp. 655–665.
Liu, Z., Guan, D., Moore, S., Lee, H., Su, J., & Zhang, Q. (2015). Climate policy: Steps to
China's carbon peak. Nature News, 522(7556), 279.
Lohmann, L. (2006). Carbon trading. Development dialogue, 48, 1-359.