Z 0922498

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES AND MANAGEMENT

Z 0922498

Cap and trade carbon cycle management policy and precautionary principle Humanity is both good and evil; it destroys but it can create and restore Toynbee A. (1976) There is no doubt that humankinds progress is based on the physical resources of the globe. In all kinds of productive activities involved in the day to day functioning of society, natural resources are the foundation. Resources are used as raw materials or as energy sources in industry and agriculture. There are limitations to the extent that the environment can absorb, dissipate, transport and transform all the products of these anthropogenic activities (see Potter et al., 1999: 133). This essay describes briefly the implications of precautionary principle in connection with a cap and trade carbon cycle management policy. Firstly, I will discuss the imminent problem of climate warming and the link with carbon cycle as part of Earths system. Then, I will analyze the emergence of precautionary principle as a response to environmental problems and the implications and limitations of cap and trade carbon cycle management policy. Finally, I try to explain to what extent the precautionary principle can be applied in a cap and trade carbon cycle programme. Climate change and the environment In the contemporary world, climatic change is one of the most important environmental problems from the bottom of the deepest ocean to the edge of space at the top of the atmosphere (Ison et al., 2002: 163). It has become the centre of many debates and researches during the last decade and opinion has been expressed from the doom-laden to the dismissive. The environmental long-term negative feedbacks, such as: land and ocean temperature rise, glaciers melt, ocean current change, weather patterns change - floods, droughts, sea levels rise put emphasize on the imminent issue of present climatic warming. Global warming is the increase of the Earths temperature due to greenhouse effect and has become one of the most important environmental issues. In the past, the climatic changes were driven by natural causes, such as variations in the Earths orbit, the carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere or changes in the pattern of solar radiation incidence on the Earths surface. What is more, many indicators suggest that the present warming is unusual in a geological time scale, and anthropogenic activity is the most plausible causal factor (Ison et al., 2002:168). Furthermore, it is believed that the main cause of global warming is the rapid increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, CFC11, HCF23, CF4) in the atmosphere which
2

Z 0922498

began almost a century ago and intensified in the 1980s (Cowie, 2007: 6). Therefore, the IPCC (2001) states that the present (2006) carbon dioxide level is 380 ppm (a 34% rise) compared with pre-industrial level when carbon dioxide level was 280 ppm (ibid, 2007: 223), (Fig.1.). They predict that, by 2100, the carbon dioxide level will increase with 90-240% over pre-industrial level and will be almost 540-970ppm (ibid, 2007: 223). Importance of carbon cycle Most climate scientists agree that human perturbations of the carbon cycle are the main factor of climate change over the 50 years. The human activity such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, intensive agriculture and other land use activities have modified the carbon cycle. The global carbon cycle is the centre of global climate and hence global climate change (Cowie, 2007: 11). It is one of the major biochemical cycles of the Earth which assure the move of chemical and biological components through or to biosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere. This flow of carbon through Earths system includes a complex process. It is known as carbon budget (ORiordan, 1995: 114) (Fig.2.). Furthermore, a disruption in the global carbon cycle due to anthropogenic and natural causes may have an effect on the entire Earths system (ORiordan, 1995:115). It is similar to a chain reaction. Therefore, if human activity releases more carbon in the atmosphere then the greenhouse effect and all its impacts will be amplified; the oceans will become more acidic, temperatures will increase and the marine and terrestrial ecosystems will be affected. It is believed that a better understanding of the global carbon cycle and the invocation of precautionary principle may influence the following policy decisions and anthropogenic activities in mitigating climate change. As ORiordan and co-workers (2002: 23) state precautionary principle is an opening window on science, law, politics, regulation and moral rules. Precautionary Principle history and definition The Precautionary principle emerged in the 1970s as a response to global environmental change induced by anthropogenic activity (ORiordan et al., 2002). Due to the fact that it was first implemented in Germany and Sweden, the original notion of this principle is the German vorsorge, translated in English as foresight planning (Lofstedt, 2003: 36). Lofstedt (2003) states that the most used definition of precautionary principle is included in Rios Declaration, 1992, Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the
3

Z 0922498

precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In other words, it can be defined as better safe than sorry because it

encourages the nations and the public to take action before the risk is assessed. In the 1990s, precautionary principle was included in the international treaties, such as U.N. Conference on Development and Environment, Convention on Biological Diversity, Second World Climate Conference, and national political strategies as a response to environmental problems. In the last ten years, the principle was invocated in genetically modified food GMF and public health debates. Precautionary principle controversy The precautionary principle is promoting environmental science rather than the conventional science and it is invoked because the limits of the environment and the social capabilities are not exactly known it is more a bridge between social and physical systems into a common economic framework (ORiordan et al., 2002: 12-13). Kaszuba and deFur (2001: 157) state that precautionary principle has four basic rules that should be more explicit. Firstly, the human health and environment are at risk, either a credible or not - there is a need to base the threats on information. Secondly, there is lack of scientific certainty because the knowledge and scientific information are incomplete. Thirdly, the cause-effect relationship is not proved and there is a need for plausible hypothesis. Fourthly, the necessity and duty to act that should not be based only on scientific certainty; it should make appeal to human conscience and responsibility. The precautionary principle has been interpreted as weak and strong. The weak precautionary principle is based on the presumption that the environmental resources and environmental problems can be solved through technological innovation, imagination and adaptation (ORiordan et al., 1994: 16-20). On the other side, strong precautionary principle is based more on an eco-centric view where humans should adapt to natures conditions without intervening (ibid., 1994:16-20). Moreover, Lofstedt (2003) argument that precautionary principle can be used as a regulatory tool, has been the centre of much debate. He states that precautionary principle is used to restore the public trust in policy makers and after this its importance will decrease.

Z 0922498

There is an issue in defining the precautionary principle because each part implicated can interpret it differently. These distinct understandings are based on culture and history. For instance, the Scandinavians want to live with nature rather than against it, while in the U.S. the economic growth is more important than environment (Vogel, 1986). Furthermore, there is a conflict between those who support it as a tool to protect the environment and those who opposite it (Lofstedt, 2003:36). For example, the U.S. policy makers believe that E.Us use of concept is a threat to scientific risk based analysis (Lofstedt, 2003 citing Chamley and Eliott, 2000, 2002). Cap and trade carbon cycle management policy One can state that each individual and each activity or company is connected, in a direct or indirect way, to the carbon cycle. What is more, each action made by humans, from the most complex such as producing goods in a factory, to the most simple such as driving the car, using the heating, are releasing carbon and other greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere. In the framework of Kyoto Protocol, held in Japan, 1997, the signatory countries should reduce their greenhouse gases emission by 5, 2% below their 1990 emission, in the 2008 - 2012 period (Kyoto Protocol, 1998). The cap and trade is part of emission trading mechanism of Kyoto Protocol as a regulatory tool used by governments or other important institutions in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emissions, especially carbon and its components, in a costeffective manner. The cap means that each factory/company will have a limit on the amount of carbon that they can emit known as emission permits/credits per each carbon tone released into the atmosphere (Cap and trade 101, 2011). The trade is a market based tool to create a system where the cap can be obtained at the lowest possible cost (ibid., 2011). This means that a company that emits less than its permit can sell the extra permits to other companies that are not able reduce the amount of carbon (EU ETS, 2011). Over time, the limits will become stricter and the pollution will be reduced, until the ultimate goal is achieved (ibid., 2011). The financial resources implied in this system could be used for climate change mitigation and economic development (EU ETS, 2011, Cap and Trade 101, 2011). Members of the Kyoto Protocol have created their own cap and trade carbon programmes to meet the targets. For instance, in 2005, the E.U. has established the Emission trading system EU ETS which operates now along 30 countries in order to reduce the carbon and other greenhouse emissions by 2020, with 22% lower than 2005. In
5

Z 0922498

U.S., the Cap and Trade 101 has as aim the reduction of carbon and greenhouse emissions to 80% below 1990 level, by 2050 (EU ETS, 2011, Cap and Trade 101, 2011) Conclusions Taking everything into account, the precautionary principle has been taken-for-granted in cap and trade carbon cycle management for the reason that the carbon emissions from anthropogenic activities will be reduced before the entire climatic changes are assessed. Moreover, similar to other environmental problems, there are some limitations of both, precautionary principle and cap and trade carbon cycle policy. After many decades of research there is no clear evidence that the climatic changes are human induced because global warming is not a new process (ORiordan, 1995: 115-114). Furthermore, in the Earths history the carbon cycle has known many changes (ibid., 1995: 115-114). One cannot say that the global warming happens just because of anthropogenic activities but it can be stated that human activities are additional to it (ibid., 1995: 115-114). ORiordan (1995) argues that the precautionary principle is premature due to the fact that there are uncertainties in both, forecasting the futures changes and analyzing the measures for reducing these changes. Therefore, there is a need to develop the local and regional forecasts system in order to get a more complex overview in the factors that induce climatic changes and measures that should be taken. Even if, the cap and trade carbon cycle policy is going to be applied there is no certainty that it will reduce the greenhouse effect and therefore the climatic changes. There is still an open debate about the extent the precautionary principle can be related to cap and trade carbon cycle policy. The precautionary principle can be entirely applied to cap and trade carbon cycle policy if it would be taken as a middle way between the strong precautionary principle and weak one. Moreover, there is a need for better understanding of climatic change in connection improvement of scientific tools for forecasting these changes. Furthermore, Dorman (2005: 172) argues that the precautionary principle should be reapproached and re-defined as a response of policy-making for encompassing all environmental problems as a ground between paranoia of assuming that all fears are valid and the hubris of thinking that we can predict the ultimate consequences of our actions.

Appendix
6

Z 0922498

Fig.1. Direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration, Mauna Loa, Hawai. (Source: NOAA, 2011)

Z 0922498

Fig.2. Carbon cycle storage and annual exchange between atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere (gigatones, billions of tone). (Source: IPCC 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis)

Z 0922498

Bibliography
ALVERSON K., BRADLEY R., PEDERSEN T., 2002, Paleoclimate, global change and the future, New York: Springer. BURROUGHS W., 2001, Climate change A multidisciplinary approach, United Kingdom: Cambridge. CARTER N., 2001, The politics of the environment Ideas, activism, policy, U.K. and U.S: Cambridge University Press. COWIE J., 2007, Climate change - Biological and Human Aspects, United Kingdom: Cambridge. DeFUR P., KASZUBA M., 2001, Implementing the precautionary principle, The science of the total environment 288, 155-165. DESAI V., POTTER R., 2002, The companion to development studies, London: Arnold. DORMAN P., 2005, Evolving knowledge and the precautionary principle, Ecological economics 53, 169-176. HOUGHTON J., 1997, Global warming, United Kingdom: Cambridge. ISON S., PEAKE S., WALL S., 2002, Environmental issues and policies, England: Pearson Education Limited. LOFSTEDT R.E., 2003, The precautionary principle Risk, Regulation and Politics, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Volume 81, Issue 1, 36-43 ORIORDAN T., 1995, Environmental science for environmental management, England: Longman. ORIORDAN T., CAMERON J., JORDAN A., 2002, Reinterpreting the precautionary principle, London: Cameron May. ORIORDAN T., CAMERON J., 1994, Interpreting the precautionary principle, London: Earthscan Publications. RESNIK D., 2002, Is the precautionary principle unscientific?, Stu. Hist. Phil. and Bio. Sci. 34, 329-344. SCHLESINGER M. et al, 2007, Human-induced climate change An interdisciplinary assessment, United Kingdom: Cambridge. VOGEL D., 1986, National style of regulation: Environmental policy in Great Britain and the United States, New York: Cornell University Press.
9

Z 0922498

ZHENQIU R., 2008, Issues concerning global warming today, Earth Science China, 2(1): 27 30. *** Cap and Trade 101 http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/captrade-101.html, February 5, 2011. ***Cap and Trade 101http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/capandtrade101.html, February 11, 2011. *** Emissions Trading System - EU ETS, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm, February 13, 2011. ***IPCC Report 2001, http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar , February 18, 2011. ***IPCC 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html, February 22, 2011. *** Kyoto Protocol http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php, February 9, 2011. ***NOAA, The Global Carbon Cycle, http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_carboncycle.html , February 22, 2011. *** Rio Declaration on Environment and Development http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163 February 11, 2011.

10