By all means. The way that K2 works is by requiring Permits to be
surrendered for industrial GHG production upstream, close to point of
production, and applying this principle to fossil fuels themselves. This then
adds to the cost of fossil fuel production and that price signal reaches through
to the end consumer (except when the Permit price is absorbed by the producer as
might well be the case for oil).
K2 therefore does away entirely with national GHG allocation,
territorial accounting, and that whole mess which is
a) incredibly complex
b) prone to fraud and error
b) entirely nonsensical in the context of a global
economy
d) always a sticking point in international negotiations as
countries bicker over emission rights.
This then creates a carbon price signal - initially not a very
strong one, reducing the pain caused. But the money raised, of order of $1
trillion, would be enough to bring about a global energy revolution towards
conservation and renewables, save threatened forests and all kinds of other good
stuff. Including another big one, adaptation. Over time the Permit price would
rise under a shrinking cap, but again pain would be avoided as the world would
by then be getting most of its energy from renewables
anyway.
In the case of emissions from deforestation and land use, K2
proposes to take this out of the market mechanism and instead deal with it by
spending on a fairly large scale (several $100bn per year) to encourage
sustainable forestry, conservation and climate-friendly farming, backed up by
regulation, itself backed up by funding to poor countries to meet their
compliance costs. Difficulties of measurement and equity issues conspire to make
this a no-goer as far as the Permit mechanism is concerned.
Oliver
--
I raised this point with my class and a swedish speaker, and it seems
to be the least thought through of the major carbon ownership arguments. In
response to the 'what about china' cries, I contested that a fair amount of
their emissions is geared towards producing cheap and plentiful goods for our
consumption. Our houses are riddled with products entitled 'made in china'.
who's emissions are they then, for the production and transportation of such
goods?
laying the blame on the companies may mean either they move to less
carbon restrictive environs, increase prices accordingly, adjust their
production process, or change market.
It is for the #West# to cut down
emissions - export problems. Import products that require emissions intensive
industries, import biofuels etc. adjust our economies to low-carbon tertiary and
quaternary sectors and let other nations pick up the carbon tab for our stubborn
resolution to merely adjust and perpetuate our current lifestyles.
I am
not sure how either C&C and kyoto2 differ on this issue, perhaps someone can
inform me?
best regards
Jonathan
> Date: Thu, 10 Jul
2008 14:29:10 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject:
C&C query
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
Hi,
> hopefully the heat from the recent C&C vs. K2 debate has cooled
enough for
> me to make the following enquiry!
> In this debate a
point was made in K2's favour, namely, how will all the
> products
imported into a country be allocated to the per capita emissions
> of the
producer and consumer countries?
> Also, I read recently an article in
Resugence magazine by Vanda Shiva
> which said: "It would be wrong, for
example, to put the emissions from the
> burning of Borneo's forests as a
per capita contribution of all
> Indonesians, including the peasants and
indigeneous communities who are
> being uprooted for palm oil
plantations."
> In both these examples it would seem that the best party
to "charge"
> against their carbon budget would be the corporation that
produced the
> product or burnt the forest (although of course this
doesn't mean I agree
> with the latter!),
>
> Tom
Get Hotmail on your Mobile! Try it
Now!