My recent piece about what’s in store for Guyana’s rainforest touched on the issue of carbon cap & trade markets and whether they can effectively reduce emissions globally. Especially when it comes to conserving the world’s remaining tropical forests. Here’s a piece in last week’s New Yorker worth reading, even if it glosses over the need to debate the efficacy of the carbon trading regime.

While the article contains lots of useful scientific information and analysis, it neglects to engage its subjects on some of their more controversial prescriptions. Half-way through the piece we encounter a reformed hyper-capitalist/former futures trader now in charge of a carbon (stock) exchange preaching the trade regime as the one solution we need to pursue. Unfortunately, the author takes it at face value when Richard Sandor says there’s no time to discuss whether carbon trading is actually the most efficacious or socially responsible approach. He complains we’re allowing morality to get in the way of science, which is a bit rich considering that he’s arguably allowing economics to once again get in the way of science and morality.

Sandor also seems to be saying that governments shouldn’t be punishing companies for “bad behaviour ” at all, merely granting them incentives to better their ways.  Holding these companies to account is a waste of time, he suggests, in the race to reduce emissions.

If the scientific merits of carbon trading are yet to be fully proven, and the potential implications could potentially exacerbate existing economic and social inequities, I’d say we should make time. But the problem is there’s already a consensus among the business and political elites that trading is the way to go. For governments, it’s expedient—they don’t have to set aside any new money. For business, it’s another means of avoiding carbon taxes that actually put a price on pollution and pursuing an economic model that sidelines the role of government. And a lot of people also stand to make money. Which is fine. But when crafting public policy of this magnitude we need to consider all the tools available to government and be honest about the motivations and behaviours of the various actors, otherwise the system is in danger of going awry.

Sandor basically suggests incentives are the only way to change human behaviour. Well, I was under the impression something as simple as laws and taxes do the same thing, but much more directly.