I passed this British Parliament report, which is sold as the answer we need radically new climate change and oil shortages. The trouble is that not true (the novelty) is basically a downstream emissions trading with free allocation in part. The only interesting thing is that they do grandfathering per capita quotas. But everything else is free roll:
- so that the energy contributions can be made closer and more understandable by the consumer, but at the mess the message: there are energies that emit no CO2, and therefore fall outside
share - a downstream has advantages of consumer perception, but it is complicated to manage, with high transaction costs (although they say no)
- do not leave the money in the consumer even says so (p15) : the consumer will decide what to do with their permits, and pay for their emissions
- no guaranteed allocation, much as I say (p16), so there is a price for emitting CO2
- and finally, it compares unfavorably with CO2 tax, and I think none of the reasons they give are real. As we all know, a tax return is essentially the same as an emissions market with free allocation asomáis many of the arguments that really are not valid
In short, it strikes me as trying to sell an idea known as as if it were revolutionary: they have never studied the issue and believe they have discovered America? If the final review state of the art should also make it compulsory for politicians ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment