ETS and retarded views

[Solomon]

Solomon, under Kyoto, if you don't meet your emissions target, you have to approach a country that has exceeded it's target and negotiate with them to 'buy' their leftover entitlement.

In that scheme you just posted a link to, total emissions increased. Can it still be called a 'scheme' if it doesn't reduce emissions? Should it be called a scam?

[freediver]

Solomon, If they don't meet their targets, they must buy quota from a country that has exceeded it's targets, or buy 130% of the gap as extra the next round.

[Solomon]

Solomon, If they don't meet their targets, they must buy quota from a country that has exceeded it's targets, or buy 130% of the gap as extra the next round.

The total emissions just keep exceeding the targets because they buy from someone who hasn't exceeded? Practically that means even those who haven't exceeded their targets eventually meet them by proxy (as they sell off their excess quota) while those who have exceeded buy up excess quota until the total emissions keep being exceeded as they did in Phase 1.

I was right, it's not a scheme, it's a scam. While the targets are met the emissions keep rising and the scam is as good as worthless.

And you propose we implement such a scam? If we go it alone in our region which nation do we buy excess quota from?

[freediver]

No Solomon, you misunderstand. I'm not sure how. Try reading the wikipedia article. It explains it better.

[Solomon]

No Solomon, you misunderstand. I'm not sure how. Try reading the wikipedia article. It explains it better.

Perhaps you haven't read it. It states that the total emissions rose by 1.9%. Once you read it you will understand what I said.

[Solomon]

You also forgot to answer the question.

If we go it alone who will we trade with?

[IQSRLOW]

OK then, here's one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_U ... ing_Scheme

So explain again why you think we are going it alone?

Only one?
Come come now Freediver- clearly you indicate that you know of more than one- which other large emitters have adopted trading schemes?

The large emitters have already adopted trading schemes.

[freediver]

It states that the total emissions rose by 1.9%.

It also states quite clearly what the consequences of that will be, so I'm not sure why you still think it is a sham.

If we go it alone who will we trade with?

We are not going it alone. We are already part of a trading scheme with all the Annex 1 countries. We will trade with them.

Come come now Freediver- clearly you indicate that you know of more than one- which other large emitters have adopted trading schemes?

IQ, there is one scheme that I linked to, but many emitters involved in it. Your central argument is clearly wrong. You have provided nothing at all to back it up, even though you claim to know the answers and insist that others back up everything they say and provide all the information for you.

[IQSRLOW]

IQ, there is one scheme that I linked to, but many emitters involved in it. Your central argument is clearly wrong. You have provided nothing at all to back it up, even though you claim to know the answers and insist that others back up everything they say and provide all the information for you.

I'll post what you stated once again- maybe it will sink in this time- after all, it was you that made the claim

The large emitters have already adopted trading schemes.

Back your claims or STFU

[freediver]

I'll post what you stated once again- maybe it will sink in this time- after all, it was you that made the claim

The large emitters have already adopted trading schemes.

Back your claims or STFU

I have already backed that up. Unlike you of course. You haven't backed up any of your vacuous claims. You just keep insisting the sky is going to fall, but there will be no economic catastrophe. You are getting rather pedantic, but you are still wrong. Perhaps you should apply the same standard to yourself and try to back up some of your outlandish claims.

Do you still think we are going it alone?