The Future of Carbon Reductions

[Schultz]

I really think the plan that surfaced in the Australian newspaper this morning is the future of sustainable Carbon reductions. For a long while I was totally disappointed in my country and the United States for failing to sign a protocol to combat global warming, which every other developed nation had signed. But now I feel differently. Kyoto offers no long term mechanism to enforce the protocol, and as it stands now, a lot of the nations that signed the protocol are failing to meet their targets.

The Carbon trading scheme which is being talked about this morning includes the APEC6 nations, which importantly includes the worlds biggest carbon emitters, and the Two most populous nations in the world. I really think a carbon trading scheme like this offers a huge amount of promise. If you have the United States, India and China at the table then if Australia can bring them together in agreement at APEC in September, it will be a watershed moment for global environmentalism. I see no reason why Australia should not take the lead here.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21757380-601,00.html

Any thoughts?? Is this going to provide the injection needed to really make a change to global carbon emissions? Is this just rhetoric? Is a carbon trading scheme even the right way we should approach this?

I think its the only way. Carbon trading has to work. Leaders of the United States and Australia for example have already shown that the only way carbon emissions can be tackled is through the market mechanism. 'The market will decide when carbon emissions reduction is possible, and the market will react appropriately when the time is right'. I feel a carbon trading scheme like this one is the only way we can satisfy both that school of thought, and the school of thought that says we need to take action now.

[airshifter]

It certainly couldn't do any worse than Kyoto. Kyoto was unreasonable from the start for most industrial countries. It ended up being little more than countries signing as a way of showing they have intentions to reduce emissions.

In the long term they need to figure out a fair balance of trading. Some countries have far too much to lose in terms of industrial output. That is often a matter of natural resources and industry skills, and you can't expect some of those countries to solve the more complex problems associated with industries that cause more pollution.

[Rollo]

I think its the only way. Carbon trading has to work. Leaders of the United States and Australia for example have already shown that the only way carbon emissions can be tackled is through the market mechanism. 'The market will decide when carbon emissions reduction is possible, and the market will react appropriately when the time is right'. I feel a carbon trading scheme like this one is the only way we can satisfy both that school of thought, and the school of thought that says we need to take action now.

No, the market wil reassign "carbon credits" from countries who have lots of credit but little initial capital to those countries who are prepared to pay for it. Since new industry would require the building of infrastructure such as power stations, all that this does is keep the rights to carbon emmissions in the hands of rich countries and perpetuate poverty.

It's colonialismn by another name and it's little wonder that the home of the "free" and its little brother should continue this.

The USA and Australia have to date shown nothing.