DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Brookings Institute

**Sironimoll** · 02-26-2007, 02:26 AM

The biggest problem I have with trading CO2 emissions is this: it is primarily a cash flow system to make Eastern Europe and possibly Africa more wealthy, and does not provide incentives to produce more efficient technology in manufacturing and other industries that do contribute to the CO2 emissions. The Kyoto Accord would never work in its current format or in this format. The only diffeerence is that the Kyoto agreement never addressed China or emerging markets while this one does.

Only by allowing the markets with businesses and some public sector define, distribute, and develop the new technologies to burn coal and oil cleaner, alternative fuels, and new engineering codes would go farther, faster, and better than this proposal can ever hope to accomplish.

I'm not sure I'm getting your argument. I believe that the emissions shares are available to all industries that are willing to purchase them at their market value. Their incentives are to develop new processes that emit less CO2, or buy the shares. Also, these shares are only to be traded domestically - no international trade of these shares. Each country gets its emissions caps and each country trades those emissions shares of that cap internally. If the total caps for the world are not distributed equitably among the nations based on their economies, then I would not support this either as I do not support the inequities of Kyoto.

Please let me know more about your point.

like to add.. all donar aid be restricted to countries of vital strategic importance. IE iraq, afganistan, and any other government under threat to collapse under pressure from islamic extremism... well thats a few dozen any ways itself..

I guess I should have worded that better in my summary. Here is the whole text of that section (from the link above):

“A Comprehensive Approach to Weak States. The United States and other bilateral and multilateral donors should place a much higher priority on addressing countries at risk of conflict and state failure. This will require an integrated set of policies that enables leaders of newly democratic countries to deliver concrete results to their people: further debt relief; increased market access; the elimination of agricultural subsidies; improved incentives for private sector development; sustained support for civil society, the free press, women’s rights and democratic institution-building; and concerted efforts to prevent and terminate conflict and to rebuild post-conflict states.”

I think the key sets of words are “at risk” and “newly democratic”. This might rule out some of the targets about which you are concerned.

02-26-2007, 02:26 AM	#18
Sironimoll Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 462 Senior Member	The biggest problem I have with trading CO2 emissions is this: it is primarily a cash flow system to make Eastern Europe and possibly Africa more wealthy, and does not provide incentives to produce more efficient technology in manufacturing and other industries that do contribute to the CO2 emissions. The Kyoto Accord would never work in its current format or in this format. The only diffeerence is that the Kyoto agreement never addressed China or emerging markets while this one does. Only by allowing the markets with businesses and some public sector define, distribute, and develop the new technologies to burn coal and oil cleaner, alternative fuels, and new engineering codes would go farther, faster, and better than this proposal can ever hope to accomplish. I'm not sure I'm getting your argument. I believe that the emissions shares are available to all industries that are willing to purchase them at their market value. Their incentives are to develop new processes that emit less CO2, or buy the shares. Also, these shares are only to be traded domestically - no international trade of these shares. Each country gets its emissions caps and each country trades those emissions shares of that cap internally. If the total caps for the world are not distributed equitably among the nations based on their economies, then I would not support this either as I do not support the inequities of Kyoto. Please let me know more about your point. like to add.. all donar aid be restricted to countries of vital strategic importance. IE iraq, afganistan, and any other government under threat to collapse under pressure from islamic extremism... well thats a few dozen any ways itself.. I guess I should have worded that better in my summary. Here is the whole text of that section (from the link above): “A Comprehensive Approach to Weak States. The United States and other bilateral and multilateral donors should place a much higher priority on addressing countries at risk of conflict and state failure. This will require an integrated set of policies that enables leaders of newly democratic countries to deliver concrete results to their people: further debt relief; increased market access; the elimination of agricultural subsidies; improved incentives for private sector development; sustained support for civil society, the free press, women’s rights and democratic institution-building; and concerted efforts to prevent and terminate conflict and to rebuild post-conflict states.” I think the key sets of words are “at risk” and “newly democratic”. This might rule out some of the targets about which you are concerned.
	Quote