One of the hallmarks of the Waxman-Markey climate bill (passed by the House, no action by the Senate) is the creation of a trading system that would gradually ratchet down the amount of carbon that can be emitted, by slowly reducing the number of tradable carbon credits that are allowed. But what if a recession creates the credits, rather than additional pollution controls? When the economy picks up, can the industries use the banked credits to put off further emission reductions? And who guarantees that the reductions in greenhouse gases that are represented by the credits are actually made? Yael Borofsky, writing on the Breakthrough Institute website, refers to a Stanford study reports that 1/3 to 2/3 of the emissions offsets under the Kyoto Treaty were not real emission reductions.
Of course, this begs the central question - is there a good reason to impose all these burdens (charging for the right to emit CO2) on development to reduce greenhouse gases that may or may not be contributing to global warming, which may or may not be harmful?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment