Sentences with phrase «not on carbon trading»

Not on carbon trading.

Not exact matches

Ms. Mitchelmore said CCS technology won't be widely adopted unless there is a price on carbon — either through a tax, a cap - and - trade system or regulations on emissions.

And Mr O'Leary has been on record saying his company will not sign up to an EU carbon trading scheme.

It isn't officially announced whether nonpolluters can trade allowances on the Chinese carbon market, but they will certainly be allowed to take part as offset credit suppliers.

A problem is that markets for trading carbon dioxide focus on cuts in emissions at power plants and factories burning fossil fuels, not renewable energies which are viewed as green.

A price on carbon need not take the form of cap and trade or a carbon tax.

In May, Michael Arceneaux, deputy executive director of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, began a one - person campaign to educate Congress that high - profile bills under consideration, notably those involving carbon cap - and - trade systems, had serious effects on water supplies that were not being considered.

«The competitive threat to the United States is not that there is a modest price on carbon imposed in the context of cap - and - trade allowances.

If permits to emit carbon were traded freely, the US would buy up the permits that China did not need, and so on.

At any rate, in my personal view, we should not prescribe exactly what needs to be done but should instead implement flexible schemes like Kyoto or the McCain - Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act that allow trading of emissions credits, credits for carbon sequestration (provided it can truly be shown to work) and so on.

The comment, made during a Jan. 17 interview with the editorial board of The San Francisco Chronicle, essentially explains how the kind of cap and trade mechanism sought by both Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain (the latter at least in his platform, if not on the stump) would make coal combustion ever more costly (unless the world finally gets serious about investing in large - scale testing and deployment of systems for capturing and burying carbon dioxide).

Some people have unwisely taken that logic to the extreme and suggested that if the US and other innovating nations just pushed hard on technology that there wouldn't be much need for emission limits, cap and trade or carbon taxes.

I have some questions on carbon trading and forests that were not explored at the meeting, which had something of the air of a pep rally (with Yale Club demeanor, mind you).

He proposes spending tens of billions of dollars (a bargain, he insists, compared to the hundreds of billions that would be spent on a cap - and - trade style approach), but he doesn't say how he'd convince the United States or China to adopt the necessary carbon tax.

Gates hammered on points reported here for many years: that without a big, and sustained, boost in spending on basic research and development on energy frontiers, the chances of triggering an energy revolution are nil; that while the private sector and venture capital investors are vital for transforming breakthroughs into marketable products or services, they will not invest in the long - haul inquiry that's required to generate game - changing breakthroughs; that a 1 or 2 percent tax on carbon - emitting fuels could generate a large, steady stream of money for invigorating the innovation pipeline; that a declining emissions cap and credit trading system --- if it could survive America's polarized politics --- would have to raise energy costs far beyond what would be politically tenable to generate a similar scale of transformational activity.

Do you not think it possible to educate the public and Congress on the advantages of a carbon tax in simplicity and removal of opportunity for political horse - trading?

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be legions of lobbyists out there for innovation (and energy efficiency, for that matter), while there are potent forces fighting on the side of coal companies and utilities, financial institutions eager to trade carbon credits, manufacturers and retailers of today's consumer products.

He may not be quite 100 % on the relative merits of a carbon tax vs. cap and trade, but he has most of the basic issues right, including the need for an auction.

Though the United States has (at best) sat on its hands and (at worst) actively hindered constructive action to combat climate change for the past eight years, with the changing of the guard coming (not soon enough), the next president can jump start action on climate change by employing the well established Clean Air Act to unify state carbon projects and administer a national cap - and - trade program.

It is designed to ensure the price on carbon imposed through the EU emissions trading scheme does not fall below a set level.

Regardless of the mechanism chosen, any carbon pricing system implemented should be Revenue Neutral so that the government does not become dependent on the revenue from the fee, tax or trade credits.

He said he did not know the details of Dr Pearman's case, but if a scientist were to join a group that argued against government policy as the Australian Climate Group did on carbon trading he or she would contravene CSIRO's media policy.

(through drastic slashing of manufacturing technologies, draconian cap and trade taxation, repossession of private property, and a whole host of other proceedures of questionable value), and on the other, you have the alternative medicine quack that says «The pain is all in your mind» (EG, the non-scientists that say that human released carbon dioxide has no impact on the environment whatsoever, in spite of the fact that this is not supported by even the slightest bit of chemical evidence.)

Lord Stern, the former World Bank chief economist whose landmark report on the economics of climate change warned the world risked plunging into economic depression if action was not taken urgently on greenhouse gases, said carbon trading was a «key plank» in dealing with climate change.

However, research from World Resources Institute shows that putting a price on carbon — with either a carbon tax or a cap - and - trade program — does not inherently help or hurt lower - income households (it is neither progressive or regressive, in economist - speak).

Carbon trading is not sufficient on its own to achieve the Paris climate goals but equally we will not slash emissions to the level required under Paris without a much more concerted and sustained global take - up of carbon pricing.

Ms Gillard indicated it would be business as usual on emissions trading under her watch, because there wasn't a community consensus on the need for a price on carbon.

Climate News Network: Don't put any bets on it — but at long last the world - wide trade in carbon looks set to improve, if only just a little.

The article also explains why government action on climate change is indispensable to an adequate climate change solution, that is, why market solutions such as cap and trade or even carbon taxes will not alone create an adequate US response to climate change.

They say that carbon trading is essentially the same as the trading of derivatives, and not unlike junk bonds or subprime mortgages, subprime carbon carries a higher risk of delivering on its value and thus is prone to price volatility.

While California cap - and - trade doesn't apply directly to us, it does apply to the joint powers authority called PWRPA that we helped establish to get our power, and we may have a chance to sell carbon allowances from environmental improvements that we make (at 1:53:00, end of staff presentation): In addition to what you can see on the video is the 3 hours that we spent in closed (confidential) session to discuss internally the negotiations with labor unions for new contracts.

Unfortunately, the wealthy countries are now intent on discussing not pollution reduction targets but «conditionalities» for a second commitment period — they want to ensure huge loopholes and the continued use of ineffective and unjust carbon trading.

Where efforts to address climate change have for the last 20 years focused on reducing national emissions through sweeping policies, like cap and trade or carbon taxes, climate policy today has shifted decisively toward smaller bore, pragmatic policies that don't promise to eliminate the climate crisis in one fell swoop but do help us move our economy toward greater «decarbonization,» sector by sector and technology by technology.

It will be a very interesting day when a major news reporting service publishes a series of stories detailing the fraud, proving the deception and debunking the lies perpetrated by hundreds of people globally who have pushed for various carbon taxes and trading credit markets (mostly for their own enrichment), based on the various questionable and outright wrong «scientific» studies which «proved» something was happening when it actually wasn't.

Here in Sweden we don't have a trading exchange for carbon emissions but we have had a tax on these emissions for some twenty odd years and it doesn't work at all.

In other words, they would accept a commitment to a global carbon price, as advocated on this website, because it does not ask countries to trade billions of dollars worth of permits with other countries.

The benefit of this would not only be to pre-empt any such externally imposed carbon tariff on China's exports (under international trade rules, a carbon tariff on goods from a country with a carbon tax would probably be illegal), but it would also allow the Chinese government to collect revenue of such a tax rather than to see it go to a foreign government.

«The trees of the global south are not a commodity to be openly traded on a global carbon market.»

I do nt have a clear sense on how long it will take the public to realise that carbon trading is likely to be scammed.

As the ecosystem of Bhutan is very fragile, we have some non-negotiables which we can not trade off with anything to stay firm on our goal of staying carbon neutral.

The carbon offset, trading and what have you that we are being conned on do not remove one molecule of carbon dioxide from the 35 % and growing overload of that gas already on the globe causing melting, coral destruction, and various shifts in biota to relocate their niches for proper temperatures to survive.

On the subject of regulation, either a carbon tax or a cap - and - trade system, Gingrich and Lomborg push the conservative party line: regulations hurt the economy and don't help the climate.

With a multi-pronged attack on carbon emissions and related pollution, cap - and - trade may be only one component, or the price may even collapse if they don't establish the right cap or a floor on prices.

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)?

The majority of the trade is carried out not between polluting industries and factories covered by carbon trading schemes, but by banks and investors who profit from speculation on the carbon markets - packaging carbon credits into increasingly complex financial products similar to the «shadow finance» around sub-prime mortgages which triggered the recent economic crash.

I'm not sure I am inclined to agree with Jim Hansen on very much, but I think if we are going to reduce carbon emissions, a tax is a hundred times more logical than a cap and trade system.

Supporters of cap - and - trade were never able to resolve this contradiction: either it wouldn't raise fossil fuel prices, in which case it would be ineffectual; or it would raise them after all, provoking an unstoppable backlash among a citizenry that hadn't signed off on the higher prices and wouldn't be getting the dividends from the tax revenues, while carbon - market participants skimmed big profits.

So what did make the final budget cut — and is America still on track for a greener future?Unfortunately, not that carbon cap and trade — there's still room for the system in the budget, but after 28 Senators protested the cap, it was left out.

Depending on the makeup of imports and exports, an import fee might not even be necessary to improve the carbon footprint of international trade as well as the national balance of trade.

Efficiency does not happen all by itself in a power - sector carbon - cap - and - trade program for various reasons (see ACEEE's report on these issues).