I ‘m college student and working on my paper on Emissions Trading on the economic side. I need academic papers for references. Thank you for your help.
Information is below.
I have noticed that every question you ask is political. You are not a politician by any chance???
Ok so I’ve heard all about this Emissions Trading Scheme to slow the effects of global warming.
But what the hell is it? Do the countries really trade anything?
I know you must be rolling your eyes saying "what a dumb ass", but what the we need these days is to understand what the future holds and understand what we’re supporting.
just imagine: allow each country a certain amount or quantity of emissions. if ths amount is
exceeded there will be consequences, fines, etc.
industrial and developed countries produce more emissons than they may have, whilst un or
underdeveloped countries produce less than their allowance.
"smart" idea of big business is to buy undeveloped countries excess emission allowance in
order to have more for developed industrial countries - consequence: no fines for developed
countries.
in other words, emission trading will let us continue to produce pollution and emissons as we
like.
come to your own conclusion what to think of that.
That’s likely the reason they lust to have it in their clutches, so as to rob from us so much the more.
Reporter Soeren Kern reports today:
The European Union’s flagship cap-and-trade carbon credit trading system is plagued by massive fraud and is effectively under the control of organized crime, according to a December 9 statement issued by European police. Europol, an EU-wide criminal intelligence agency similar to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, says bogus trading at the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) has exceeded €5 billion (U.S.$7 billion) over the past 18 months alone. Europol says that in some EU countries, up to 90 percent of the entire market volume is fraudulent.
If it isn’t on TMZ, the Daily Show or grocery store tabloids, they don’t know about it.
The Australian Government tried to get one passed, but was thrown out by the senate.
It is just a clever way of putting a huge TAX on everything to try and balance their buget.
Why should the less well off have to suffer by paying more for power food just because of all the hot air coming out of Canberra.
It has worked in the past for sulfur emissions, so we have no reason to doubt it will work for carbon.
I know it has been denied, but can someone explain it to me?
The Emissions Trading Scheme is basically about setting a price for carbon dioxide emissions large companies purchase "carbon credits" allowing them to pollute up to a certain amount. Heavy polluters are still able to buy additional carbon credits and charge consumers (us) extra so they continue to increase their profit. The idea behind it is: If we make everything (food/groceries, fuel, electricity etc) so expensive then people will use less of it. But the flip side to that is that if people are spending more on basic living expenses, then they will never afford to "go green" and electricity companies will have no incentive to go green either!
In my personal opinion, it’s a tax… nothing more, it’s not going to change anything or make the environment any better. It will just send more Australians broke or bankrupt when they can no longer afford a car, fridge, food, fuel, tv and internet and air conditioning and education. Furthermore, many manufacturing, mining and emission intensive companies will just close here (increasing unemployment) and move to China - where it’s expected they definitely wont ever pass an ETS.
I’d be interested to see what Climate Change policy Tony Abbott and the Liberal party come up with now.
How true is that?
i will do my own poll,so do you believe in Global Warming?
and would you support a emissions trading scheme?(E.T.S.)$2,000 per household?
Well gees i posted it in the Australian section under Climate Change and an ETS is an emissions trading scheme,
Malcolm Turnbull is supporting an ETS for reasons that he knows best.
I can tell you here and now that most Australians DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT support another tax. We have had the GST imposed on us this decade. We do not need another flat tax. Flat taxes like the GST and the ETS are highly inequitable. They punish the least well to do - that is the working poor and those totally dependant on social security or self - funded retirees.
There is no point in saying that you will give support to these groups until the effects of the tax kick in and everything levels out. These groups are permanently worse off.
There are already over 400,000 people homeless in Queensland alone. This is due to the impact of the economic downturn. If people are made further worse off and they loose the roof from over their heads we could have up to a million Australians homeless. This is not an exaggeration.
The cost of electricity has doubled for people in New South Wales in the past six months. This has resulted in a lot of low income families having to go to the Salvation Army, Anglicare or St Vincent de Paul and Baptist and Uniting Church charities for the first time and ask for vouchers to help pay their electricity bill.
If Malcolm and Kevin Rudd add another tax to the cost of electricity and the cost of living in general many low wage earners and the people of social security will not be able to pay their way. Governments should be looking at expanding the use of clean technology. Even people who do not believe in climate change can see the virtue of using clean technology to reduce the amount of pollution in the environment.
No not all Australian believe in Global Warming. No not all Australian believe in the ETS even if they do recognise global warming as fact. A tax will not stop industrialist polluting. Some of them have only two options - pollute or go out of business in Australia. They will go off shore. They will simply trade the right to pollute and pass the cost on to consumers if they stay onshore. They will not reduce the amount of pollution. Pollution reduction is the key to reduced global warming.
I would support placing solar panels on the roof of each domestic residence in Australia. That would help cover the consumption of domestic power. I would support each household having at least one rainwater tank. That would reduce the amount of water that they waste. I would also support recycling of grey water.
I would support the further development of solar power companies and wind power companies in Australia. I would support the development of "Hot Rocks" technology or subterranean steam technology especially in southern Australia to generate electricity.
http://www.hotrockltd.com/irm/Content/home.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dry_rock_geothermal_energy
http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/hotroctx.htm
http://www.aussiehotrocks.com/?page_id=19
http://www.hotrockenergy.com/
http://cleanenergyaus.com.au/technology.htm
http://cleanenergyaus.com.au/technology.htm
This shoud be used instead of the use of Brown Coal which is very dirty. Neither of the major political parties has done this.
I would also support the development of a much larger ethanol industry in Australia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Australia
http://e-85.com.au/
I would support the development of a little known device invented by a Ballina company that is installed into heavy vehicles - B doubles, B triples, semi - trailers and delivery vehicles that captures the fumes before they are expelled into the atmosphere and reuses them to drive the vehicle - the company is Permodrive http://www.echonews.com/729/index.html
I also support the reduction in unnecessary land clearing and an increase in reafforestation. There should be a rapid increase in reafforestation in Tasmania in particular where the wildlife - the Tasmanian Devil is suffering from the rapid destruction of the forests in that state. No one in Tasmania or anywhere else in Australia gave permission for the whole sale destrucion of the Forests in that state. It has been recognised for over 50 years that global warming is largely due to the destruction of forests.
This is my contribution to answering your question about Malcolm Trunbull and ETS. I hope that it goes some way to solving your curiosity about peoples’ opinions on the matter. Not all people support a tax however. The Liberal Party needs to find a strong alternative policy to the governments’ policy rather than just agreeing with them to a large extent. Offering the electorate strong options while keeping the government in check in the role of a strong opposition.
A $2,000.000 ETS tax per household is not the answer to climate change. Australians do not want or need this.
Cheers!!!
Well Tony Abbott’s got the leadership now so the ETS will probably go to a Senate Committee until February. After that there may be a climate/environment policy in place for the coalition. After that there may be a double dissolution election. It will be all very interesting to see but none of it will reduce the amount of pollution in the environment. We need to using the right technology. Less carbon energy - more renewable energy.
Currently US produces 100,000,000 ton of steel. For each 1 ton of steel 1 ton of carbon dioxide is released. The industry employs 100,000 workers and pays good union industrial wages. Net revenues $10 billion.
In China there is no capandtax, and due to obsolete technology each 1 ton of steel produced 2 ton of carbon dioxide is released.
Please estimate the effect of capandtax on all three:
1) US unemployment
2) US trade deficit
3) carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
US steel prices will go up.
China steel prices will remain the same.
China will corner the market on steel production.
US steel will go out of business, 100,000 unemployed workers. $10 billion less in US revenue (damaging economy) and carbon dioxide production will raise from 100,000,000 tons to 200,000,000 tons per year when Dirty Chinese factories take over the steel production.
And the US trade deficit will increase by Billions.
much more than implementing it would have done?
Would the Emissions Trading Scheme have made a difference to carbon emissions?….
or was it all smoke and mirrors anyway?
…pardon the pun!
Very true Edgardo.
And the rich nations like Australia refuse to admit that they can afford to do much more than developing nations in terms of upgrading factory infrastructure to reduce emissions and applying vehicle standards.
They impose an unfair burden on our neighbours by doing so.
The thumbs down don’t come from me. I don’t give them to anyone.
And if you can name one decision by a politician that has ever been "put on hold" and then delivered at the stated delayed date…then please do.LOL!!
Because in MY experience "putting policies on hold" is Canberra speak for shelving them indefinitely.Putting them in the round file (the bin). The Too Hard Basket.
And if you don’t know about Australian politics why bother to comment? He was elected on a massive number of Green preferential votes. The electorate gave a clear mandate for Climate Change action and the Emissions Trading Scheme was a key part of his election strategy.
It worked. People voted for him and Greens preferenced him because of it.
And now he has renegged without any community consultation whatsoever.
It stinks!!
Emmission trading schem will minimize the carbon emission here in the Philippines however this will not made the bulk of changes due to the habit at the same time the practice of industrilized country that they make Philippines the dumping site of the second hand motor vehicle not only the Philippines but also the underdevelop country.
You people are being led like sheep to the slaughterhouse with Al Gore’s mindless carbon nonsense:
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade
by Deborah Corey Barnes
10/03/2007
Al Gore’s campaign against global warming is shifting into high gear. Reporters and commentators follow his every move and bombard the public with notice of his activities and opinions. But while the mainstream media promote his ideas about the state of planet Earth, they are mostly silent about the dramatic impact his economic proposals would have on America. And journalists routinely ignore evidence that he may personally benefit from his programs. Would the romance fizzle if Gore’s followers realized how much their man stands to gain?
Earlier this year Gore experienced a notable public relations debacle. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a state think tank, revealed that he was an energy hog. Public records show that Gore’s Nashville mansion used in one month more than twice the electricity the typical American household uses in a year: His average monthly electric bill was more than $1,359. Moreover, Gore’s household energy use increased after An Inconvenient Truth, his film about global warming, was released to ecstatic reviews.
Never mind that the scientific community is divided over what causes global warming, how bad it is and how to deal with it. Gore plays Chicken Little to the media’s applause, insisting that the world is warming dangerously and that he has the solution.
The ‘Cap-and-Trade’ System
To resolve the “climate crisis,” Gore wants to put a cap on the production of greenhouse gases. He calls for an immediate freeze on U.S. emissions, a ban on new coal-fired power plants, tough new fuel-economy and energy-efficiency standards, renewable energy mandates, carbon taxes and mandatory targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Those emissions consist mostly of carbon dioxide (CO2), the byproduct of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas, which supply 85% of all U.S. energy. Gore’s blueprint to save the planet moves the United States towards a command economy in which government regulators hold sway over what kinds and amounts of energy will be made available to the private sector. His principal regulatory tool is what’s called carbon-credit trading.
Under a so-called “cap-and-trade” system, government places a ceiling or “cap” on private-sector emissions of CO2 and other “greenhouse gases.” Each sector, industry or business is allocated a fixed quantity of carbon credits that allow it to emit specific quantities of greenhouse gases. As an example, one tradable carbon credit might permit the emission of one ton of CO2. If a business emits more tons of CO2 than its supply of credits allows, it has the option to buy surplus credits from other firms — or it will have to pay a fine in proportion to the amount of the excess emission. By contrast, businesses that emit less than their allocation can sell their excess credits.
This system, which may sound market-friendly, is something only a bureaucrat could dream up. The twist is that the carbon market exists only because the government’s imposition of a cap creates an artificial scarcity in the right to produce energy. In a cap-and-trade system, buyers will purchase their offsets from a broker or through an electronic trading platform. In Europe, carbon trading is already a reality. Since 2005, carbon offsets have been traded electronically on the European Climate Exchange (ECX).
Most carbon cap-and-trade programs also allow regulated entities to earn credits by taking actions that supposedly reduce emissions outside of the firm’s facilities or operations. In one popular version of the carbon-offset concept, firms earn credits by buying seedling trees for planting in less-developed countries. Supporters claim the CO2 intake of the trees will balance out the carbon emissions of the sponsoring firm’s industrial activity. Despite its public relations value, scientists scoff at the notion that it’s possible to plant enough trees to balance out man’s production of CO2. But carbon-offset projects are popular in the environmentalist community.
More Chances to Cheat
However, the most radical environmentalists reject cap-and-trade. They say it allows polluters to continue to pollute by purchasing carbon credits. That is true but irrelevant. A ton of CO2 emitted in Beijing has the same climatologic effect as a ton emitted in New York. The real problem is that every country’s government has an incentive to cheat on behalf of its domestic producers. This has been the European Union’s (EU) experience with the Emissions Trading System (ETS) that the EU established to implement the Kyoto Protocol. In just about every EU country except Britain, the credits allowed exceed the corresponding tons of emissions.
Carbon offsets provide even more opportunities to cheat. For example, some aluminum com
yes that’s what they’ll be doing to the wallets of struggling americans