Slashdot Mirror
What the US Can Learn From Europe's Pollution Credit System
Al writes "Technology Review discusses what a US carbon trading scheme could learn from the flawed European experience. Advocates of carbon-trading schemes like to point to Europe's cap-and-trade program as a model worthy of emulation, but the reality has been less than perfect. A glut of pollution credits, distributed without cost during both the first, transitional phase of the program and the current working phase, drove down the value of the EUAs. As a result, Europe's carbon dioxide emissions remain priced well below 20 euros per ton. With the price of pollution so low, economists say, industries that generate and consume energy have no incentives to change their habits; it is still cheaper to use fossil fuels than to switch to technologies that pollute less. Establishing a carbon price in the US system now, and tightening the system later, could send a dangerously wrong signal to financial markets looking to invest in new energy technologies."
Yes it is a Market system therefore it is a a Market any utilization of the price mechanism in order to self regulate an industry is a market. I am surprised that one does not yet exist in the US.
I'm still wondering why that was modded flamebait.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
> In fact, most of the science points to a rapid change in CO2 being the causal agent for climate change.
No, the fact is that the link between CO2 and global temp is a theory. With some pretty good evidence in the historical record to show a link but the big question the ice cores and other evidence aren't precise enough to answer with certainty is which forces the other? Does CO2 (absent human activity) rise with temp or does it work the other way around. Or do they interact in ways we don't yet understand, perhaps in combination with several other factors.
Fact: CO2 levels have risen over the past decade. Human activity is highly likely to account for much of it.
Fact: Solar activity (sunspots) and solar output (light, especially UV) is down over the past decade.
Fact: Global temp has fallen over the past decade.
Can a conclusion be drawn from those three facts? No. But it certainly doesn't make the arguments for AGW stronger.
Democrat delenda est