Search

Environmental policy, including the Kyoto Protocol, is laden with values. Recognizing this fact can help UNFCCC parties come to agreement. Much of the contention surrounding the post-Kyoto negotiations can be explained through a framework of values. This article summarizes the arguments used by proponents and critics of emissions trading of greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol through such a framework of values. Proponents and critics of emissions trading espouse common values, such as achievement, to work toward ameliorating climate change; there is less agreement on emissions trading seen through values such as responsibility and fairness. As non-Annex I parties are expected to take a more active role in the second commitment period, identifying values held by those working on their behalf will facilitate negotiations and help develop a discourse that is inclusive of their interests. Annex I parties can also benefit from the identification of the values to better convey their interests. All parties can use the values framework identified here to construct a more durable climate change regime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tradable permits are increasingly becoming part of environmental policy and conservation programs. The efficacy of tradable permit schemes in addressing the root cause of environmental decline—economic growth—will not be achieved unless the schemes cap economic activity based on ecological thresholds. Lessons can be learned from the largest tradable permit scheme to date, emissions trading now being implemented with the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol caps neither greenhouse gas emissions at a level that will achieve climate stability nor economic growth. If patterned after the Kyoto Protocol, cap-and-trade schemes for conservation will not ameliorate biodiversity loss either because they will not address economic growth. In response to these failures to cap economic growth, professional organizations concerned about biodiversity conservation should release position statements on economic growth and ecological thresholds. The statements can then be used by policy makers to infuse these positions into the local, national, and international environmental science-policy process when these schemes are being developed. Infusing language into the science-policy process that calls for capping economic activity based on ecological thresholds represents sound conservation science. Most importantly, position statements have a greater potential to ameliorate biodiversity loss if they are created and released than if this information remains within professional organizations because there is the potential for these ideas to be enacted into law and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]