LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAnyone any ideas on markets for pollution/emissions trading, or any think tanks active in that area?
Anyone any ideas on markets for pollution/emissions trading, or any think tanks active in that area?
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Sorry, Ibis, 99.99% of Irish are simply not interested in it. Nothing must stop growth.
Look, the Irish only started recycling household waste a few years ago and most of that is shipped abroad. Wait until they get into the twentieth century before you start asking about such irrelevant matters, will you?
Subscribe to Friends of the Irish Environment's daily newsletter for starters although there is precious little news about emissions trading.
Arch enemy of the environment Dick Roche is for the current system of emissions trading in some measure, so it must be a crap idea.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them
The problem of course is in your title: markets.
At every level of 'authority', pollution, consumption, waste and the environment are all seen in a market context.
Waste and pollution are big business and the EU is set to make them even bigger business. The 'think tanks' are most often concerned with managing and supplying demand rather than reducing demand.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them
Desperate Dicky seems to think that the concrete industry is going to stop producing GHGs:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0217/environment.html
That's alright then!much of the rise (in GHG emissions) was a consequence of the construction boom and would disappear now that the cement industry has entered the emissions trading market.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when creating them
I don't know too much about it but emissions trading, if I understand it correctly, seems like one of the most bogus solutions I've ever heard proposed for anything. Does it not basically just amount to causing the same pollution as before but only, in addition, finding a country which does not pollute so much and agreeing terms to take their excess allowance from them? How does this help the environment exactly if the same amount of pollution is taking place? There must be more to it than this.
An emissions market neither increases nor decreases the amount of pollution emitted, by itself.Originally Posted by Nils
Either way, the government sets a cap on pollution (x many tonnes of pollution).
In the non-market case, someone like the EPA sets the limits on a company by company basis, with, say, an annual review. If a company goes over the amount of pollution, it gets fined. If a company reduces its pollution below the amount set by the EPA, it gains nothing.
In the market case, someone like the EPA sets the limits on a company by company basis, but after that, emissions are tradable. If a company goes over the amount of pollution it holds licences for, it is fined. If a company reduces its pollution below the amount of licences it holds, it is entitled to sell that licence.
Under the market system, a company has an incentive to drop its emissions below the targets set for it. Under straight licensing, it has no such incentive.
The system has been used for SO2 emissions in the US. Emissions went, and stayed, 10% under the overall emissions limit set by government.
In addition, any company can buy a tradable licence, which means that a green group can set up a company and buy licences to take them out of circulation.
It is possible to run such a licence system internationally, but I suspect that it is not a good idea, as countries with stringent inspections will simply hand off their pollution to countries with lax enforcement. Nationally, however, it makes a lot of sense.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Thanks ibis. Clearer now.
It's the Kyoto Agreement's idea, not Roche's.
"All employment is outright robbery" says Cael, the voice of reason
Actually, I can't imagine the Minister for Destroying the Environment thinking up any environmental ideas whatsoever.It's the Kyoto Agreement's idea, not Roche's.
I suspect he likes it for the same reason that most environmentalists dislike it - reflexively, based on the word 'market'.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Lousy reason for both sides, if true.
"All employment is outright robbery" says Cael, the voice of reason
Reply With Quote