I thought we'd given up on anything to do with the environment and targets ;)

Well, at least a few select individuals will get richer out of it, and can add some more beach front californian properties to their property portfolio.

Have you seen the carbon exchange recently? The price has all but collapsed.

Probably, but also a lot of windfall profits to be made by those involved in setting up and running this scheme.


Al Gores just added this 9 million dollar ocean front mansion to his list of luxury real estate dotted around the United States.

This property is for he and his wife to live in. 9500 square feet, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms, swimming pool, spa etc etc etc. All this for 2 people. oh, and his private lear jet.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/how-green-is-al-gores-9-million-montecito-ocean-front-villa/1#.UKy6aofaXnw

The UK has sold 6.5 million tonnes of carbon allowances for €6.62 each. This is just half the average price achieved over the past four years.

In California they expect to start trading at $10.

I prefer James Hansen's suggestion of a tax on carbon emissions, the proceeds of which to be equally distributed to all citizens. I fear the temptation of government to siphon it off might be too great though.

Posted By: SteamyTea

Posted By: atomicbisfI prefer James Hansen's suggestion of a tax on carbon missions

So do I

Posted By: atomicbisfthe proceeds of which to be equally distributed to all citizens

Why? So they can spend it on 'stuff'.
Be much better if the government spent it on renewables infrastructure, but they seem incapable of even getting the 'Big 6' to offer a sensibly priced energy bill, or sort out a price for nuclear generator, or RHI, or FITs.
Or build a railway line, by-pass, windturbine, houses, sea defences, sewers, waterpipes, turn off street lights ....
So I think the country would all be better off if they just raised extra revenue on fuel and gave it to me, least your houses would get insulated and draught proofed.

I think the idea is it would be politically more acceptable and therefore more achievable in that it couldn't easily be attacked as 'another tax'.

Posted By: TriassicI agree, just giving money back to tax payers will only encourage the purchase of more 'stuff'.

I don't see how the same amount of money being around (just owned by different people) is going to encourage more stuff.

I, too, am very sympathetic to Hansen's ideas on this. It seems to me that the Earth has the ability to absorb only a certain amount of extra COâ‚‚ emissions. That ability is a resource shared by us all - ultimately by everybody on the planet. Those who want/need to make more use of the resource ought to pay those who are willing/able to use less of it.

The big complication is that the resource is shared across the globe and across generations.

Typically this is a progressive tax (in the sense that it tends to take from the rich and give to the poor) and, as such, is unlikely to find favour in the current ideological climate. Hence why on another thread I suggested more complicated mechanisms of spending on housing improvement, etc. Also, that short-circuits arguments that it would tend to penalize those in poor housing (which it would, in the short term).