7comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
 Climate Colab Sep 30, 2010 03:46  | Proposal contributor
What are the pros and cons of this plan?
|
 Rob Laubacher Sep 30, 2010 03:46  | Proposal contributor
This plan is not aggressive enough and would lead to dangerous temperature increases of almost 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.
|
 Andelman Andelman Sep 30, 2010 03:46 |
this plan is mostly concerned about the sustainability of emission cuts in the current economy but it disregards the actuall effects that this proposal will have on Earth climate
|
 Joana Abreu Joana Abreu Sep 30, 2010 03:46 |
Although cap and trade is a necessary market instrument for emission reduction, the way allowances are initially distributed and the value of each carbon ton are essential attributes of success. Depending on how the market runs and is regulated, emission reduction may only occur if the price of improving energy efficiency overcomes the cost of paying for carbon tons.
|
Andelman Andelman Sep 30, 2010 03:46 |
this plan is based on the wrong assumption that climate change can be addressed gradually
|
Andelman Andelman Sep 30, 2010 03:46 |
this plan is based on the wrong value that economy is a priority over the environment. But how can economy thrive without being sustainable?
|
Joana Abreu Joana Abreu Sep 30, 2010 03:46 |
The USCAP Scenario seems to be a regional / national scenario, and lacks interdependencies at a global level. If imports of goods don’t follow the same cap and trade market rules imposed to US companies based in the US that will create market inequalities. At the lights of carbon cap and trade regulation, perhaps an embodied carbon tax, taking into account the product life cycle, could be beneficial for the American economy (as a hole) and contribute to the global objective of climate change.
|
