Carbon credits? WTF?

[Monkeytrousers]

For eg - the US buys carbons credits from low emission countries, such as Iceland, and therefore needs to make no effort to lower it's own carbon emissions?

Is this right?

[LieselVonGiftwrapp]

No its so wrong. How do you know this? I think a message to the press with this.

[RantInEMinor]

basically yes. emissions trading is an established model and not without it's critics. The European Union Emissions Trading scheme is the only mandatory carbon trading scheme in the world and they have a website which provides more info on how it works www.carbonpositive.net (i think).

Wait until carbon trading works its way down to individual level. you'll be able to trade your emissions with your neighbours.

In defence of the US, whilst at federal level they are useless on a state level there are some great initiatives to cut carbon emissions and promote sustainable energy.

[bluejelly]

yes lots of individual states have signed the kyoto protocol, even thought Mr George 'head in the sand' Bush hasn't...

[Monkeytrousers]

It was being discussed on radio 4 yesterday Liesel.

It's just mad - postmodern politics has just disappeared up its own arse!

[trying2bgood]

I don't agree with the whole carbon credits idea either, to me they are like the whole £20 to one of those climate charities who plant a tree for you when you fly. This offsetting is only temporary and encourages people not to change their behaviour.

What winds me up even more is Tony Blair lecturing us on the 'warning' that we cannot ignore about climate change then his govt agreeing to a third runway for Heathrow which will mean 500 extra flights a day! Apparently despite the earth being in serious danger, the economic benefits outweigh the environmental consequences. Short-term vision or what?

[worldgonewild]

PCA's (Personal Carbon Allowances) would be given out to each individual or family, from a UK total allowance. This UK total would be reduced over time, therefore achieving the aim of reduced carbon emissions.

Trading simply allows flexibility within the system, acknowledging people starting out at different levels. Those that make an effort to reduce their carbon footprint are rewarded by selling their improvement on their allowance on the carbon market. They could then use those funds to invest in further improvements if they wish. Trading therefore rewards those making an effort.

The sliding scale on the UK's total carbon allowance over the years will mean less and less carbon credits available on the carbon market. This will force (often wealthier people) to make changes as the price of a carbon credit goes up.

That's the theory anyway!

[NotQuiteCockney]

I think it's a good idea in theory, as it means there's a financial incentive to use less fossil fuel etc. Not sure about the implementation, though.

[RantInEMinor]

following tryingtobegoods post - i read an article by George Monbiot which stated that this government will be spending 6 times more money on widening the M1 than it will spend on fighting climate change! Says it all really.

[worldgonewild]

Yes NQC, probably end up as chaotic as Child Tax Credit.

[DominiConnor]

I'm not sure it will work, but it is a good idea.

Different countries have different ablilities to deal with carbon. Iceland ain't a great place to grow trees, but has plentiful geothermal energy.

Also it creates more of a market for efficient technologies. Coal is currently about the cheapest way of making electricity, but is also about the most polluting after solar and biodiesel.
There needs to be an incentive to move away from it, but instead the world's use seems actually to be going up.

This is going to be very hard. Unlike oil and gas, coal is available to many more countries within their own borders. Thus it is a lot harder to be screwed around by oil states, and in extreme cases means that they can't be harassed so much by economic sanctions.