Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I'll re-polish the text later and will see if I can muster some mental aspirin to delve through the specifics of the accord.
by Bjinse on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 08:23:30 AM EST
It looks like the typical stupid kind of plan politicians come up with: sector A should reduce emissions by X%, while sector B should reduce emissions by Y%, and sector C should increase production by Z%.

Detailed, complex, suboptimal and easily manipulated by powerful special interests. In short, a big mess.

It doesn't matter where emission cuts happen, because a molecule of CO2 from a tailpipe is identical to the molecule from the coal plant's smokestack. It doesn't make any sense to treat them differently. It's not rational. The important thing is the absolute volume of emission reductions. They should happen where it is the most cost-efficient to have them. By doing it that way, the cuts will happen at the least possible cost, or to put it another way, the cuts will be as large as possible given the assigned budget.

How do you achieve this? By simply taxing emissions, or if you suffer from a clinical hate against taxes, using emissions trading.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Aug 28th, 2013 at 06:45:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series