Hmm, not entirely sure that I agree. I mean, I obviously agree in theory, but (and I am aware that my posts often suggest the contrary) theory doesn't cut it.
You have to be realistic/pessimistic in this sense: companies are *not* going to take responsibilities; hence, governments are unable to take responsibilities, or at least it won't work, since the companies will just move to countries who don't give two shits about carbon emissions, mainly because they're developing in a non-sustainable manner.
So what to do? Give incentives! No matter how horrendous and cynical this may sound, make the whole carbon thing into a product and let the market have its way with it.
The central idea behind selling/buying carbon rations is *not* that it's "ok to pollute if you can pay for it". Yes, it makes it slightly more difficult for developing countries to buy emission-permission, but in general they're the ones that can *sell* them. The central idea is twofold: (a) obviously, emission costs, and the polluting countries have an incentive to cut down on emissions; (b) because the "cleaner" countries can sell their permission, they have every incentive *not* to engage in more pollution, as they would lose income. Netto result = gradually less pollution as the polluting countries cut down to cut costs. Then you can lower the permitted level and the same process will kick into gear.
Let me give you a counter-example. Let's assume that you give a fixed ratio for everyone... This will have for effect (a) that either the investment will have a detrimental effect on the polluting countries' economies, or, more likely, that they will move their plants to less polluted countries, polluting them as well (b) less polluting countries have *no* incentive whatsoever to remain that way, so their pollution will increase untile they reach the level (or some company puts their plant in their country). Net result: equal amount, or even more pollution.
So, while I know it sounds "immoral" to trade environmental benefits and pollution, and while it may give the wrong message, it *does* provide a better solution than a fixed ratio, which will fuck up more than is actually saved (increased unemployment in polluting countries, and movement of polluting firms to unpolluted and often undeveloped countries). It's sick, but as far as emissions go it's the best way, if not the only one. I mean, it is simply impossible for a government to make a company *do* anything, especially if you don't have the benefits of cheap labour or other stuff to offer. China is a country that can still "force" companies to accept their terms, but that's only because workers mean shit over there.
Arf
Edit: like I said, I'm aware that this gives the wrong message, as it's a bit like "hey, I pollute like shite but I give money to greenpeace every month" - still, it's better than "hey, I pollute like shite, and greenpeace gets squat". It's like environmental tax/road tolling, where you say, drive what you want, but *pay* for it. And pay what the *real* cost is. It's undemocratic, but at least it can give you income, which you can then redistribute as a government (with vision), so that not only you invest for instance in public transport, but also provide benefits there to the less well-of: redistribution. Look what sustainable development-country Bhutan does: it asks every foreinger (except NGO people) $200 a night, whether you spend it in a tent or hotel (all strictly regulated). True, only the rich can go to Bhutan, but with that cash, Bhutan can actively counter the prensence of those tourists.
