I think that pollution rights trading only will be practical (hopefully)
for certain pollutants. The following is not my own argument, but
unfortunately I don't recall whose it is. To put it simply, there are
EPA regulations stating what safe levels are for certain pollutants;
e.g. mercury, air particulates, etc. If you allow trading of pollution
rights, it will almost definitely result in levels that are above EPA
limits, and will likely occur in regions where the population is
unlikely to have much power to fight it, and given the decrease in
funding to the executive arm of the EPA, any complaints that are logged
are unlikely to be investigated and prosecuted effectively.
Just my two cents.
Completely off topic, but I think an interesting question, is this:
Why do tomatoes cost more per pound than many cuts of beef. Is it
really more expensive to grow tomatoes than a steer (and keep in mind
that half the weight of a steer is probably offal and bones meaning that
the actually poundage of "supermarket beef" is likely only about 1/2 or
less of the weight of the steer)? Just something to think about.
Andrew
Daniel Reeves wrote:
>very useful discussion. Sounds like pollution rights trading is the right
>solution here.
>
>"One way to begin to overcome the opposition to Kyoto from developing
>nations, Congress, and the President, would be to start a system of
>marketable quotas, for example of CO2 emissions, that would be traded on a
>worldwide exchange." -- Gary Becker
>
>
>--- \/ FROM Matthew Rudary AT 04.12.21 15:10 (Today) \/ ---
>
>
>
>>Becker (a Nobel-prize-winning economist) and Posner (a Circuit Court
>>judge) discuss global warming and the Kyoto protocol this week on their
>>blog, at http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/
>>Interestingly, Posner, who is fairly conservative, supports the US
>>signing the Kyoto protocol.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>Daniel Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks Chris. Those are worth reading. I once came across a Car and
>>>Driver article (someone in the lab taped it to the wall) lambasting global
>>>warming research. I found the premise of the article disgusting: that
>>>there isn't enough proof that the observed climate changes are human
>>>influenced. It's like pooh-poohing getting your brakes checked because
>>>not all the mechanics agree that your car is a time bomb and the ones who
>>>think it is are using questionable evidence.
>>>
>>>In other words, even if the actual probability is quite low that the
>>>climate changes are human-caused, we still desperately need to act.
>>>
>>>that's my $0.02.
>>>
>>>oh, one more thing, since it relates to the AAA debate. Can't read all
>>>that much into this but I just googled around and found an anti kyoto
>>>treaty website quoting a AAA publication from 1998 about how "only" 13-17%
>>>of scientists believe things like global warming is caused by humans or
>>>that there are catastrophic consequences to not reducing greenhouse gases.
>>>
>>>Actually, aside from that shameful quote from AAA, the website made some
>>>seemingly good points about why we shouldn't adopt Kyoto. Could someone
>>>with a clue impart their cluefulness this way?
>>>
>>>Danny
>>>
>>>To get on or off the improvetheworld list:
>>> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld
>>>
>>>
>>>--- \/ FROM Chris Kiekintveld AT 04.12.07 18:00 (Dec 7) \/ ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Some fun stuff on slashdot today about global warming:
>>>>
>>>>First, an article about a study of the last 10 years of
>>>>articles published in peer-reviewed science journals about
>>>>global warming shows an unusual degree of consensus on
>>>>the basic question of global warming:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
>>>>
>>>>And, a group of geologists presents a pretty clear overview
>>>>of the case that "The dangers posed by climate change are no longer
>>>>merely possible and long-term. They are probable, imminent, and global
>>>>in scope.":
>>>>
>>>>http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/12/nparticle-vkt-hgf...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
|
