Sentences with phrase «emissions trading system gives»

The EU Emissions Trading System gives countries wriggle - room in meeting environmental targets.

Not exact matches

The order gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the authority to repeal and replace the Clean Power Plan, the set of rules that established goals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil - fueled electricity plants through a national trading system.

Taxes give clear, long - term price signals that make it easier for firms to make intelligent investments that will cut carbon emissions, whereas the price volatility of cap - and - trade systems impedes wise planning.

The free world might even, heaven forbid, reverse the current, rather unthinking, trend towards global free trade and institute a system of climate - based protectionism, to give force to our requirements that the entire globe reduce emissions.

This debate is taking on renewed significance, given the possibility that the UK could withdraw from the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) when it leaves the European Union.

A large portion of emissions allowances in the EU trading system are still given away for free, and they would not be affected.

We argue that trade - offs between emissions reductions (or limiting emissions growth) and increasing energy access are inevitable, given the present state of energy systems.

Since developing countries reject caps and the EU will not give up its emission trading system, none of these original schemes could succeed.

«This bill uses the best approach we know - a market based trading system - to reduce emissions and give companies maximum flexibility in meeting requirements.

It could, as Michael A. Livermore has argued, work with states to create a cap - and - trade system for greenhouse gases, which would, in theory, give polluters more flexibility to cut their emissions (rather than having every facility have to conform to the same rigid set of rules).

But they also gave states flexibility to limit emissions through a carbon tax or by a carbon trading system.

Given that, if one wants freedom of choice and an efficient market, shouldn't one accept a market solution (tax / credit or analogous system based on public costs, applied strategically to minimize paperwork (don't tax residential utility bills — apply upstream instead), applied approximately fairly to both be fair and encourage an efficient market response (don't ignore any significant category, put all sources of the same emission on equal footing; if cap / trade, allow some exchange between CO2 and CH4, etc, based CO2 (eq); include ocean acidification, etc.), allowing some approximation to that standard so as to not get very high costs in dealing with small details and also to address the biggest, most - well understood effects and sources first (put off dealing with the costs and benifits of sulphate aerosols, etc, until later if necessary — but get at high - latitude black carbon right away)?

That's because the bill gives utilities a financial incentive to keep burning coal by joining the cap - and - trade system — a kind of marketplace where polluters could reduce their emissions on paper by buying pollution reductions created by others.