Hi Chris
What about this scenario?
If C+C is adopted, industrial nations that produce lots of goods,
such as China, will have to purchase bigger emissions quotas. This
will put their costs up, thus increasing the purchase prices of their
export goods. If they continue to buy quotas under an annually
reducing cap (contraction), prices will rise higher and
higher. Eventually the point will be reached when their goods will
be too expensive for other countries to purchase. Hopefully, this
might be spotted before it happens, and might even stimulate local
production for local consumption.
I think C&C is the way forward, but it will need full acceptance,
including trading by vouchers that can be redeemed against low-carbon
technology rather than dollars, and will have to be the framework for
a global-scale but locally realised economic reduction towards
sustainable communities. If you remember Ted Trainor's book The
Conserver Society, he shows that a sustainable community will be more
like an Amish community or an early kibbutz than a modern Western
city, and explains clearly why replacing fossil fuels with renewables
and nuclear can never enable the world to continue as present, let
alone allow "developing" countries to develop. He calls them "never
to be developed" countries (and the rich nations
"overdeveloped"). Maybe 'green' technology and efficient recycling
can permit a good deal of modern lifestyle within a locally-based
society, but his central point must be true. There will be no global
manufacturing centre once the oil runs out.
Cheers, Tom
At 00:07 17/03/2008, Chris Keene wrote:
>I've been reading about Kyoto2 recently, and I'm not sure C&C is the
>way forward - it doesn't account for embedded energy - all those
>Chinese beavering away to make consumer junk for the West have the
>emissions involved counted towards *their* budget, which is obviously unfair.
>I wonder if a scheme involving auctioning of emission rights to
>energy corporations, with the proceeds going to an international
>body like the UN, would be better. They could then use the revenue
>to help the majority world develop along a zero carbon pathway,
>putting money into R&D, renewables etc. And we could do away with
>all those loopholes in Kyoto, like the CDM, which are supposed to
>finance this development of renewables there, but have hardly made
>any difference and which are effectively preventing the setting of a
>real cap, the most important think we need now.
>
>I know that C&C is supposed to finance this, but the trouble is,
>payment for emission rights goes to governments, and I think the UN
>would be better, since so many governments are corrupt, and even if
>they aren't, they are under so much pressure to cut taxes there will
>be a great temptation for them to use payments they get for emission
>rights to fund general government expenditure, rather than low
>carbon, or zero carbon, development.
>
>But I might be wrong. What are people's views on this?
>
>Chris
|