This is exactly how it is supposed to work. Yes, yes, I know, it all sounds ridiculous but this really is how it’s supposed to work.
Those emissions that can be stopped at the lowest cost should indeed be those that are reduced first.
Emissions Trading
2 responses
-
Am I missing something? It doesn’t sound ridiculous at all. If trifluromethane really is as bad as the article says, and the costs have been applied proportionately, then it’s totally right that a small reduction in that gas should be paid for buying (seemingly large numbers of) CO2 credits. So long as the extra CO2 emitted is less than 11700 times that of the CHF3 stopped.
Everybody wins! This is ideal, surely?
Quite how they work out these figures is another issue, however, but let’s hope they’re correct…
Tim adds: Perhaps I should have said “to some this will seem ridiculous” but of course, you’re right. As the post points out, this is what should be happening. -
Tim “Undercover Economist” Harford had a good article in last weeks FT about emission trading v taxing:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/71faadd0-e88b-11db-b2c3-000b5df10621.html
Leave a Reply