Green? Not necessarily…
Even the best of intentions can be twisted. An article in the WSJ sheds light on how companies such as Rhodia have taken advantage of an UN rule, which was meant to curb pollution, and made money off it.
Rhodia is a chemical manufacturing company which destroys nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas. Under the UN rule, it can therefore receive pollution “credits” which it can sell to polluters in countries for revenue. The original plan was for money to flow from the richer countries to the poorer countries, thus incentivizing the poor countries to develop green technology. Companies such as Rhodia, however, take advantage of it and make enough money to de-incentivize their own countries from being green.
Although Rhodia claims that it is “committed’ to protecting the environment, figure make it is clear that the pollution credit business is profitable, far more than even their primary product, adipic acid. The UN also defends the rule, by saying that greenhouse gas cutting obligations are being fulfilled, even to the developed countries. Yet the fact remains that the primary purpose of the program is being undermined by Rhodia.
I guess the main takeaway from this situation would be that the UN will probably have to place tighter controls on the companies that it issues “credits” too. It definitely did have the right idea by trying to automate the process and using the markets, as it would require far too much work to deal with each organization individually. Sanctioning who they give credits to, and putting a cap on the number of the credits awarded per company, would go a long way in fixing this problem.
