Issue Summary

The carbon emissions trading scheme refers to a market-based approach policy tool used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of targeted. The overall goal of an Emissions Trading Scheme is to reduce emissions. However, it has been argued that the scheme is ineffective as with their financial advantage, economically abundant countries would be able profit from the carbon credits they buy and would thus be able to continue to buy even more credits and carry on polluting the earth. An emissions trading scheme also encourages major polluters to continue with their businesses as they are and expensive long-term structural changes will not be made if there is a cheaper alternative in carbon credits. Therefore, in spite of the innovative idea and its theoretical gains, it is criticised as a mere distraction from the search for other solutions.
Annex I Countries

The 36 industrialized countries and economies in transition listed in Annex I of the UNFCCC. Annex I countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol are legally bound to reduce their greenhouse emissions by 5% by 2012. Each Annex I Party must report on and account for emissions and removals in the commitment period on lands on which these activities have occurred. The Kyoto Protocol allows Annex I Parties to add to or subtract from their initial assigned amount, thus raising or lowering the level of their allowed emissions over the commitment period, by trading Kyoto units with other Parties.

Emissions Trading Emissions trading enables Annex B parties to acquire or sell carbon units or allowances to and from other Annex B parties to meet Kyoto Protocol targets. If a company does not use all its carbon credits, it may sell the surplus. Similarly, if a company requires additional credits, it may purchase surplus credits from another Annex B firm.

Under this mechanism, an Annex I Party may transfer Kyoto units to or acquire units from another Annex I Party. Emissions trading does not affect the total assigned amount of Annex I Parties collectively; rather, it re-distributes the assigned amount among them. A Party may acquire an unlimited number of units under Article 17. However, the number of units that a Party may transfer to other Parties is limited by the Partys commitment period reserve (CPR). The CPR is the minimum level of units that a Party must hold in its national registry at all times. The requirement for each Party to maintain a CPR prevents a Party from over-transferring units, and thus impair its ability to meet its Article 3, paragraph 1, commitment (see chapter VI.2 for more information on the CPR and the way in which it is calculated).

Annex I Parties may choose to implement domestic or regional (e.g. with a group of Parties) schemes for entity-level emissions trading, under their authority and responsibility.3 Although the Kyoto protocol does not address domestic or regional emissions trading, Kyoto Protocol emissions trading forms an umbrella under which national and regional trading schemes operate; entity-level trading uses Kyoto units and needs to be reflected in the Kyoto Protocol accounting. Any transfer of units between entities in different Parties under such domestic or regional trading systems is also subject to Kyoto Protocol rules. The European Union emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) is one example of a regional trading system operating under the Kyoto Protocol umbrella.

Effects of Carbon Trading By reducing carbon emissions, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be reduced slowing heat entrapment.

Companies that emit excess carbon dioxide will be penalized and forced into taking more care. Wide ranging and comprehensive carbon trading will result in an overall reduction in greenhouse gases and hence a reduction in global warming. The world will be cleaner and safer place to live.

 We will all feel more secure and protected. Basically, we need to get carbon trading and standards right. This is not happening now and countries are still avoiding the issue. United States did not enter or adopt the Kyoto protocol. China and India, two of the largest carbon dioxide polluters did not sign the carbon emissions code of behavior which means it became a farce. The main goal was to cut greenhouse gases but without the commitment of big countries, particularly those with the most polluting industries, any scheme is just a waste of time and is of no value. Environmental projects such as this must not be taken for granted or glossed over. The effort to remove destructive activities must be ramped up. Whether we want to admit it or not, it is because of our actions that climate change is happening at the rate it is. Instead of shaking our heads about carbon trading, we should embrace it because it is for our well being. As we continue to ease and improve our lifestyles, we cannot forget the consequences of carbon emissions on our environment. Why not try to do both so that we can preserve and bequest a livable Earth to our children.
Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto Protocol took effect in 2005 as an addition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It contains more powerful and legally binding measures to reduce greenhouse gases. As of December 31, 2007, 175 countries and organizations had ratified the protocol, which aims to reduce carbon emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels by the end of Phase 2. The Kyoto Protocol introduced three mechanisms for achieving emissions reduction goals: Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, and Emissions Trading. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) The UNFCCC is a treaty that became effective in 1994, creating a framework for inter-governmental efforts to minimize the effects of climate change. The UNFCCC covers industrialized countries committed to reducing greenhouse gases, but does not include many developing countries that are significant greenhouse gas emitters, such as China and India.

Carbon emissions trading What does this all have to do with carbon emissions trading? Under the UNFCCC, countries are permitted to use a trading system to help meet their emissions targets. In principle, a country may allocate permits to individual companies for the emission of a certain quantity of greenhouse gases. If permits are only issued to a level equal to or below the assigned amount, then a country should meet its Kyoto commitment (assuming that the measures of its emissions are accurate). If a country is incapable of meeting its target, it can buy permits from countries that are under their targets. Similarly, companies within a country that prove more able to reduce their emissions are allowed to trade excess permits to other, more polluting, enterprises. AMBO DECLERATION The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, who also attended the conference, chose not to be part of the declaration by taking Observer status

How it works? -any firm emitting carbon dioxide (or for a broader range of gases any carbon dioxide equivalent) would be required to own permits equal to the amount of carbon it produces.
Disadvantages

-Kyoto Protocol would force emissions back below 1990 levels and hold them there without regard to the costs and benefits of doing so. -it would generate large transfers of wealth between countries. -Massive exports of permits would lead to exchange rate appreciation and a decline or collapse in exports other than permits.(developing countries) -no individual government would have any incentive to police the agreement-require an elaborate and expensive international mechanism for monitoring and enforcement.

Advantages -Governments will have an incentive to monitor the system because they will be able to collect revenue from selling permits.

Facts
Thursday February 17, 2011

ANALYSIS - Governments to debate Kyoto climate dilemma

OSLO (Reuters) - Governments are looking at ways to keep the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol going beyond 2012 in some form to defuse a standoff between rich and poor nations that threatens efforts to tackle global warming. Negotiators from almost 200 nations will meet in Bangkok from March 3-8, after side-stepping the Kyoto issue at their last meeting in Mexico in December. "There is some creative thinking going on" about Kyoto's future, said Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate and energy programme of the Washington-based World Resources Institute. The Kyoto Protocol obliges almost 40 industrialised nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions and is meant to underpin carbon trading, but existing curbs expire on Dec. 31, 2012 and developed and developing nations are at odds over its future. The U.N.'s climate chief, Christiana Figueres, said early this month the world needed an "intermediate solution" for Kyoto -- whose text says it will be extended beyond 2012 -- since demands by rich and poor nations are diametrically opposed. Japan, Russia and Canada insist they will not extend cuts in greenhouse gases under Kyoto and want all top emitters, led by China and the United States, to agree a new treaty beyond 2012. Emerging nations, led by China and India, say rich nations must extend Kyoto to show leadership in combating climate change and averting what the U.N. panel of climate scientists says will be more floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels. Kyoto obliges cuts in greenhouse gas emissions averaging at least 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the period 2008-12. The United States is the only rich nation outside Kyoto and emerging nations have no binding goals. SOLUTIONS? Experts say all intermediate solutions have drawbacks. One option is to preserve elements of Kyoto, such as a mechanism that promotes carbon-cutting investments in developing nations, while allowing each rich nation to set its own cuts in greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2012. Another is to extend existing emissions cuts under Kyoto, perhaps until 2015, by when it may be clearer if a legally binding treaty is possible. But prospects for a binding deal have faded since a U.N. summit in 2009 fell short.

A radical idea is to revive an "Article 10", rejected by developing nations in 1997 when Kyoto was agreed, that would let developing nations list "voluntary commitments" to curb their rising greenhouse gas emissions as part of the text. Or the European Union and other backers of Kyoto might push ahead and persuade Japan and others to commit to new, tougher emissions goals under an extended protocol. A continued small Kyoto group is likely to face calls to impose trade barriers on cheaper energy-intensive imports. Or Kyoto might be abandoned and replaced by a new deal, as urged by Japan and others. That looks an unlikely outcome. TWO-SPEED KYOTO? For 2011, governments want to focus on details of a deal to set up a Green Climate Fund, measures to combat deforestation and ways to adapt to climate change, as agreed in Cancun, Mexico in December. They also agreed to a goal of limiting the rise in global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) above pre-industrial times. The United Nations says pledges so far for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are inadequate to reach that goal. "In Cancun, the U.N. negotiations took their hand off the self-destruct button. That button is Kyoto and legally binding emissions targets," said Jonathan Grant, director of carbon markets and climate policy at PricewaterhouseCoopers. "The problem is that some developing countries are insistent on legally binding targets," he said. "The uncertainty from the United Nations talks filters to uncertainty at the EU level. Combined with fraud in the market, it's knocking the confidence in new investment." In a cyber attack on some European Union carbon registries last month, carbon permits worth about 50 million euros ($67.66 million) were stolen. A big problem with designing Kyoto is that major emitter the United States is not a participant. Former President George W. Bush said Kyoto wrongly omitted curbs on greenhouse gas emissions for developing nations and would cost U.S. jobs. Hermann Ott, a member of the German Bundestag for the Green Party and author of a book about Kyoto, said one option was to let countries work at different speeds. "The United States won't be part of a treaty for 10 or 15 years," he said. President Barack Obama failed last year to get the U.S. Senate to agree to cuts in emissions.

SECOND ISSUE
including failed states, weak economies, restrictive immigration policies, and global labor demands

What is women trafficking? Trafficking in women is a criminal phenomenon that violates basic human rights, and totally destroying victims' lives. Countries are affected in various ways. Some see their young women being lured to leave their home country and ending up in the sex industry abroad. Other countries act mainly as transit countries, while several others receive foreign women who become victims of sexual exploitation. This prevalent form of trafficking affects every region in the world, either as a source, transit or destination country. Women and children from developing countries, and from vulnerable parts of society in developed countries, are lured by promises of decent employment into leaving their homes and travelling away. Victims are often provided with false travel documents and an organized network is used to transport them to the destination country, where they find themselves forced into sexual slavery and held in inhumane conditions and constant fear. The trafficking of women for sexual exploitation is an international, organized, criminal phenomenon that has grave consequences for the safety, welfare and human rights of its victims. The most frequent destinations for the women are Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and the Middle East. What is sexual exploitation? Sexual exploitation is a violation of human dignity, therefore it is a fundamental human right to be free from sexual exploitation in all of its forms. Sexual exploitation is a practice by which person(s) achieve sexual gratification or financial gain, or advancement through the abuse of a person's sexuality by abrogating that person's human right to dignity, equality, autonomy, and physical and mental wellbeing.

The United Nations has established a new multi-donor trust fund to aid victims of human trafficking around the world. South East Asian women remain among the most vulnerable to trafficking, despite their progress in passing laws to combat the problem. Although some South East Asian countries like Indonesia has made some progress on the issue by passing an anti-trafficking law and signing all U.N. conventions and protocols relating to human trafficking, Implementation of these laws, however,

remains poor and is subject to corrupt police and government systems similar to the condition of the other countries. The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (also referred to as the Trafficking Protocol) is a protocol to the Convention against Transnational Organised Crimes adopted by the United Nations in Palermo, Italy in 2000. The Trafficking Protocol entered into force on 25 December 2003. By October 2009, the Protocol had been signed by 117 countries, and there were 133 parties. Human trafficking in Canada has become a significant legal and political issue, and Canadian legislators have been criticized for having failed to deal with the problem in a more systematic way.

RCMP
In 2004, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) estimated that 600-800 persons are trafficked into Canada annually and that additional 1,500-2,200 persons are trafficked through Canada into the United States. [edit]Future
[2] [3]

This was updated in 2010

Group report
[4]

The Future Group

is a Canadian humanitarian NGO founded to draw attention to "human trafficking

and the child sex trade". It adopts a prohibitionist stance on prostitution. In 2006 they wrote a report entitled Falling Short of the Mark: An International Study on the Treatment of Human Trafficking Victims
[1]

Of eight industrialized nations countries examined and ranked, they gave Canada the lowest score (F), compared to the United States as the highest (B+) in terms of best practices in terms of providing support for victims of trafficking "Canada has ignored calls for reform and continues to re-traumatize trafficking victims, with few exceptions, by subjecting them to routine deportation and fails to provide even basic support services." (p. 13) The report also states that "Canada's record of dealing with trafficking victims is an international embarrassment and contrary to best practices" (p. 2). The report was also critical of the former Liberal Government but stated the new Conservative Government had not had time to formulate a policy. [edit]Government

response

Commenting on the report, the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Monte Solberg told Sun Media Corporation, "It's very damning, and if there are obvious legislative or regulatory fixes that need to be done, those have to become priorities, given especially that we're talking about very vulnerable people."
[5]

[edit]US

State Department Trafficking in Persons Reports

The US Trafficking in Persons Report is an annual report of the US State Department that takes stock of the international human trafficking situation, with Tier 1 being the highest ranking while Tier 3, may be subject to certain U.S. government sanctions, such as the withholding of non-humanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance, funding for government employees educational and cultural exchange programs. Canada has been rated as Tier one consistently with the exception of 2003 when it was considered Tier 2. The 2009 report states "The Government of Canada fully complies with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. During the past year, the Canadian government maintained strong victim protection and prevention efforts, and demonstrated modest progress in prosecuting and punishing trafficking offenders, securing five trafficking-specific

convictions during the past year. Law enforcement personnel, however, reported difficulties with securing adequate punishments against offenders." The 2010 report confirmed Canada's Tier 1 status.
[6]

[7]

The report states that "Prostitution by willing

adults is not human trafficking regardless of whether it is legalized, decriminalized, or criminalized.assured countries that the State Department would not include prostitution in its numbers as human trafficking, stating that prostitution by willing adults is not human trafficking, regardless of whether it is legalized, decriminalized or criminalized." (p. 8) Therefore should Canada fully legalized sex work this will not effect its Tier ranking. This is a change from earlier reports such as 2005
[8]

which linked tolerance of prostitution to trafficking. Furthermore the US now follows

the International Labor Organization which considers human trafficking to be predominantly an issue of forced labour rather than of sexual exploitation. (p. 8) [edit]Other A 2009 US State Department Human Rights Report
[9]

stated

"NGOs estimated that 2,000 persons were trafficked into the country annually, while the RCMP estimated 600 to 800 persons, with an additional 1,500 to 2,200 persons trafficked through the country into the United States. Many victims were Asians and Eastern Europeans, but a significant number also came from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Women and children were trafficked for sexual exploitation; on a lesser scale, men, women, and children were trafficked for forced labor. Some girls and women, most of whom were Aboriginal, were trafficked internally for commercial sexual exploitation." However it did not break these figures down further by type of trafficking (see above) nor comment on their accuracy, however it continues "Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto served as hubs for organized crime groups trafficking in persons, including for prostitution. East Asian crime groups targeted the country, Vancouver in particular, to exploit immigration laws, benefits available to immigrants, and the proximity to the U.S. border." [edit]Canadian

NGOs and claims of links between sex work and trafficking

[10]

As noted by the US report, Some Canadian NGOs such as Vancouver Rape Relief Sisyphe
[11]

and

believe that keeping prostitution illegal is the best way to prevent human trafficking, forced

prostitution, child prostitution and similar abusive activities. They argue that a system which allows legalized and regulated prostitution makes it more socially acceptable to buy sex, creating demand for prostitutes and, as a result, human trafficking increases in order to satisfy this demand. However these claims are disputed by other organizations.
[12]

Justice Susan Himel in a 2010 Ontario Superior Court decision, referring to the New Zealand Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, noted that "Under-aged prostitution does not appear to have increased post-criminalization, and, as of 2007, no situations involving trafficking in the sex industry have been identified.
[13]

This has been disputed by those claiming a link, stating that New Zealand is a country notable for its geographic isolation, and is not on any trafficking route. Furthermore, the report has been accused of bias by opponents of prostitution.