Carbon Offsets Daily

Daily carbon offset news, insight, community.

  • Author:
  • Published: Nov 6th, 2009
  • Category: USA
  • Comments: 1

Buying carbon offsets could become a speculators game


| Sourced From Guelphmercury.com |

NEW YORK The U.S. government often deals with such complicated issues and speaks in such confusing language that many Americans just seems to tune out. So it has been with

Related posts:

  1. Dan: Buying carbon offsets could become a speculators game, http://bit.ly/170i1q
  2. Dan: Buying carbon offsets could become a speculators game, http://bit.ly/170i1q
  3. Buying carbon offsets could become a speculator’s game http://bit.ly/ZGOIi
  4. Buying carbon offsets could become a speculator’s game http://bit.ly/ZGOIi
  5. Buying carbon offsets could become a speculator’s game http://bit.ly/ZGOIi

Tags: , ,

One Response to “Buying carbon offsets could become a speculators game”


  1. peter dublin
    on Nov 6th, 2009
    @ 7:34 pm

    Cap and Trade is wrong
    - whether one is for or against emission control

    The issues are emission reduction and future energy supply.

    Given the uncertainty of the effects of emission reduction on global
    temperature – and given the expense of emission reduction – the key is
    to engage in activites which
    1. Are valuable in themselves.
    2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.

    Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020
    typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on
    electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles)
    alone, since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions.

    This can be done with emission tax (for cars, allowing free choice)
    and emission limits for CO2 (for electricity generation), without any emission trading.

    The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:

    1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all
    else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or
    immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.

    2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid
    distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills
    for consumers.

    3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other
    energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition
    advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.

    4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement,
    steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated
    countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are
    not just more limited, but also largely local.

    In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
    1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no
    value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes
    in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
    2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case America is on track,
    and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures,
    and can involve other industries if necessary.

    Funding and Impact
    Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial
    loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state
    guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect
    on electricity bills or transport cost.
    The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and
    predictability surrounding the funding.
    Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business
    continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared
    expense and disruption.
    This is even more obvious from having no energy efficiency regulation either.

    Compare with
    todays all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions,
    with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal
    business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free
    allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other
    hand, together with extensive energy efficiency regulation on what
    people can or cant buy and use.

    —————————————-
    Emission Policy Alternatives
    http://ceolas.net/#cce1x
    Introduction: The need – or not – to deal with emissions
    The Overall Picture
    Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
    1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
    Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
    2. Carbon Taxation
    Fuel Tax — Emission Tax
    3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
    Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair
    Trade — Surreal Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs –
    Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Cost — In
    Conclusion
    4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
    Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions
    .

Leave a Reply

© 2009 Carbon Offsets Daily. All Rights Reserved.

This blog is powered by Wordpress and Magatheme by Bryan Helmig.