ETS and retarded views

[IQSRLOW]

I have already backed that up

No- you haven't

[freediver]

If you still don't understand perhaps you should look into it a bit yourself. For someone who is being so pedantic, who claims to know the answers already and who demands such high standards from others, you are very reluctant to back up any of your silly claims. I have posted more than enough links, information and explanation for any reasonable person to figure it out.

[IQSRLOW]

The large emitters have already adopted trading schemes.

When you have learnt that you shouldn't make stupid unsubstantiated statements you should come back and post in this thread

[IQSRLOW]

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl? ... 3875/15#15

I'm just asking you to back up your claims, that's all. It adds nothing to the debate if you just make stuff up.

[Solomon]

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.



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.

Could you post the consequences please. What penalty does the EU now face as they exceeded previous outputs by 1.9%?

If we are already part of a trading scheme why are we discussing a new one? Is it ineffective? Who are our current trading partners?

[freediver]

The trading scheme we are already part of is the Kyoto protocol. It only seems to govern trading between nations. How they control emissions internally is up to them. The one under discussion in the media at the moment is an internal scheme between private groups.

The penalty is that they would have to buy permits from some other country to cover that 1.9%, so the total emissions from participating states reaches the target. I think the Europeans just bought a heap of emissions rights from Japan, though I'm not sure what scheme this was under. If they failed to purchase the permits, eg because they weren't available, then at the start of the next round they would have to purchase an extra 1.9% x 1.3 = 2.5% worth of emissions permits to cover the previous round's shortfall. In this case, then over the two round period, the total emissions would be lower, not higher.

That's my understanding anyway, based on that wikipedia article I posted earlier.

[Solomon's Wise Grandfather]

The trading scheme we are already part of is the Kyoto protocol. It only seems to govern trading between nations. How they control emissions internally is up to them. The one under discussion in the media at the moment is an internal scheme between private groups.

The penalty is that they would have to buy permits from some other country to cover that 1.9%, so the total emissions from participating states reaches the target. I think the Europeans just bought a heap of emissions rights from Japan, though I'm not sure what scheme this was under. If they failed to purchase the permits, eg because they weren't available, then at the start of the next round they would have to purchase an extra 1.9% x 1.3 = 2.5% worth of emissions permits to cover the previous round's shortfall. In this case, then over the two round period, the total emissions would be lower, not higher.

That's my understanding anyway, based on that wikipedia article I posted earlier.

As the Kyoto Protocol sets non-binding targets is it like playing Monopoly with pretend friends?

If the new scam is an internal one who do we trade with if all parties exceed their limit?

If the penalty is to set ever tougher targets into the future why worry about today? Why not keep pushing the problem into the future?

[freediver]

As the Kyoto Protocol sets non-binding targets is it like playing Monopoly with pretend friends?

It sets binding targets on Annex 1 countries.

If the new scam is an internal one who do we trade with if all parties exceed their limit?

That will depend on the scheme we adopt. I'm not a big fan of ETSs.

If the penalty is to set ever tougher targets into the future why worry about today? Why not keep pushing the problem into the future?

Because there are financial penalties for any countries that do. It wouldn't be in their interest. Not only does it reduce the permits available in the next round, it forces the countries responsible to pay for the reduction.

[IQSRLOW]

Is this guy part of your economist consensus Freediver- or do you just discard his views because they don't fit the blinkered direction?

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/al ... -3f3w.html

ONE of the world's best-known economists, Jeffrey Sachs, has warned Australia against using an emissions trading scheme to tackle climate change, saying it would never win global support.

On the eve of the Rudd Government releasing its blueprint for emissions trading, Professor Sachs said the concept was "highly disliked" by China and other developing countries, and they would never agree to it.

Professor Sachs, economic adviser to United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon, and author of the best-seller The End of Poverty, made the warning yesterday at a conference at the Australian National University. Standing alongside the Government's climate change adviser Ross Garnaut, who wants Australia to adopt emissions trading, Professor Sachs declared that:

â– There would never be a global agreement to introduce emissions trading or carbon taxes to tackle climate change.

â– The world instead should seek agreement on goals, and plans to develop and share new technologies, then leave each country to decide how much of the burden it would take on, and how.

â– Australia should introduce a carbon tax as a simpler and less rort-prone system, and invest the proceeds in the development of new technology.

Professor Sachs said any attempt to get an international agreement had to start with the West assuring developing countries that their goals to achieve economic development would take priority over tackling climate change. "I think nobody is going to like this (emissions trading), frankly," Professor Sachs told the ANU's annual China Update.

[freediver]

Is this guy part of your economist consensus Freediver- or do you just discard his views because they don't fit the blinkered direction?

There is nothing in there that directly contradicts the consensus.

the concept was "highly disliked" by China

Of course China dislikes it. They are communists. However acknowledging that a communist country will oppose private ownership and free trade does not mean the economist thinks communism is a good idea.

The world instead should seek agreement on goals, and plans to develop and share new technologies, then leave each country to decide how much of the burden it would take on, and how.

That's very similar to what the Kyoto protocol does. Signatories are not forced to trade. They are welcome to merely meet the goals through whatever internal prcesses they want. Countries like China are still free to choose how much of the burden to adopt. However, never introducing binding targets is bound to fail. It's called the tradgedy of the commons. Eventually China and India will have to join in.

Australia should introduce a carbon tax as a simpler and less rort-prone system, and invest the proceeds in the development of new technology.

This is very similar to my position, however the decision on whether to invest the money should be made on the merits of the investment, not on where the money comes from.