E3G

Will carbon markets save the planet?

By Tom Burke

The potential planet-saving power of carbon markets was under the spotlight recently at the inaugural debate organised by UK news magazine The Week in association with intelligence2.

The invitation-only event was held at the RSA, and saw E3G Founding Director Tom Burke speaking against the motion ‘Growth can be green: the carbon market will allow us to save the planet without sacrificing economic growth’.

Environmental writer Mark Lynas sided with Tom Burke in speaking against, while its proponents were James Smith, Chairman of Shell UK and Eric Bettelheim, Executive Chairman of Sustainable Forestry Management.

Earlier that morning, Tom Burke and James Smith discussed this same issue on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme. You can listen online by clicking on the link for the 7.30am to 8.00am timeslot – the discussion starts 4 minutes into the audio track.

Tom’s speech from the evening debate follows here below, and is also attached in pdf format for download.

Update, 20th June. For those interested in the outcome of the debate, we’ve got hold of the voting figures for before and after. It seems that Tom and Mark had the greater sway over audience opinions:

Before the debate: For: 54; Against: 24; Don’t know: 26
After the debate: For: 58 (+4); Against: 36 (+12); Don’t know: 2

“Growth can be green: the carbon market will allow us to save the planet without sacrificing economic growth”

Inaugural ‘The Week’ debate, held at the RSA, London, 7th June 2007.
Speech against the motion by Tom Burke.

Growth can be green. In fact, as we go deeper into the twenty first century, it will have to be green if it is to continue at all. But the carbon market will be much less important than orthodox opinion, and the proposers, would have you believe.

We face a shared dilemma. All of us need to secure reliable access to energy for our economies to grow. Without that growth we cannot maintain social cohesion and political stability.

For China, India and the United States, as well as Europe and the rest of the world, that means using more fossil fuels, especially coal. If we do so with present technologies then it is certain the climate will change and probably much sooner, and more, than we currently expect.

If that happens then the very social cohesion and political stability we are burning the fossil fuels to maintain will be at great risk.

The point of a dilemma is that neither of the choices is attractive. We do not want to give up either the use of fossil fuels or a stable climate. The problem with a dilemma is that you will be gored by both of its horns if you take too long to decide what to do. Then you have the worst of both worlds. The trick is to resolve the dilemma not to make false choices.