Display:
I'll have to go read the original, but as a quick response to number 6, they could always institute a cap and trade scheme for major emitters, similar to that used under the Clean Air Act for air pollution. This provides a financial incentive for reducing emissions, as well as limiting the total (obviously they'd need to supplement it with other measures to target the transport sector and home heating).

As for 3, I agree, sequesteration is looking about as likely as fusion power.  Until then, they can always plant trees, I suppose - but that's probably not a real solution in the US (it is looking like a real solution in NZ).

by IdiotSavant on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 08:01:09 PM EST
IMHO Emissions trading is total bollocks.  If it d work then they wouldn't do it.

I remember attending a meeting during "Derivatives Week" in London a couple of years ago. Unusually there were some serious traders on the panel. (it's about the only time you get them away from their desks)

When asked their views whether emissions trading would work, they all said no, and the audience agreed.  As one of the audience said:

"If you want to keep a Donkey healthy, you don't regulate what comes out of it, you regulate what goes in".

In other words the only thing that would work to cut consumption is massive levies and taxes, (or maybe, alternatively to create an energy-based currency, and to apply levies to non-renewables which could be invested in renewables).

Of course that would be "bad" for economic growth, which we have to have or the system implodes.

"Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Sep 19th, 2006 at 10:59:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series