tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post6392348346635312784..comments2023-10-30T11:00:05.243+00:00Comments on Bacon Butty: Don't ditch the Kyoto ProtocolUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-87659597615550219212007-12-09T11:56:00.000+00:002007-12-09T11:56:00.000+00:00I like ideas one/two and three/four. Seeing sector...I like ideas one/two and three/four. Seeing sectoral change means that environmental innovations will diffuse much quicker - there is just the difficulty of coming to an agreement without policy imposing a standard.<BR/><BR/>The north-south transfer is key in terms of picking low-fruit and having an equitable outcome.<BR/><BR/>The 6 question of tax is difficult. I don't know if it is possible to aim for a tax level where emissions levels will peak at a 'safe' amount or at least limited. I am more of the opinion that if one is to regulate carbon then the practicalities dictate that regulation will have to be a supply-driven policy not demand-driven via price. This essentially means that we are addicted to carbon and demand-side policies are likely to be too little too late. Also carbon taxes tend to be regressive as they take a relatively larger burden of low-income budgets vs. high-income.<BR/><BR/>Supply-driven policy will probably demand a cap and trade system - carbon allocations, quotas,permits. The design of the framework will determine its success - what level of carbon it is limited to, what timeframe is agreed, who uses the permits, who owns (and gets revenue) from the permits.<BR/><BR/>Kyoto seems to have suffered from an excessive dishing out of free carbon permits to carbon-hungry sectors. An inflationary spiral as too many were issued in the firstplace and the EMS transfer system just meant more carbon capacity was being fed into the system. but i dont think the idea of ditchting it should be jumped on too quickly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com