[CAMWEST-discuss] another rant: emissions trading schemes

Danny Hannan danny_hannan at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 23 23:00:26 UTC 2009


This was the content of an e-mail i sent to my local fed member and Senator Milne.
 
Emissions Trading Scheme
 
Firstly I would like to reiterate my opposition to an Emission Trading Scheme.  In my opinion this is a flawed concept for the express purpose of reducing green house gas emissions.  Any trading scheme is a system of generating profit for the traders and can have no other primary purpose.
 
The only way to reduces green house gas emissions is to tax the net production of those gases or the source of the emissions (fossil fuels) at a set rate with no exceptions, exemptions or permits.
 
While I think that much more research needs to be done to determine the green house potential of a number of suspect gases including CO2 that does not mean we should delay action.  The simplest and most positive action on emissions is to tax green house gases at a fixed rate pertonneof CO2 equivalent.
 
There are important benefits to using a direct tax over other systems:
·               Industry has a fixed cost it can deal with into the future.
·               Governments collect much needed revenue to build energy efficient infrastructure and renewable energy production into the future.
·               In these times of high cost and low income for governments increased revenues are required.
 
The far more imminent problem is the depletion of fossil fuels.  The global peak energy production can be little more than a decade away.  There are many areas that fossil fuels cannot be replaced by renewable energy (reduction of metal ores to metals, petrochemical/plastics, nitrogenous fertilizers, mining, agriculture and transport) for this reason we need to conserve our fossil fuels for future needs.
 
Far more important than an emissions tax is a consumption tax on fossil fuel.
 
A consumption tax on fossil fuel would have many advantages:
·               A reduction in consumption of fossil fuels and green house gas emissions at the same time.
·               Promote increases in energy efficiency.
·               Remove the viability of energy wasting emission reduction methods (carbon sequestration).
·               Increase the viability of renewable energy.
·               Promote energy efficient transport and remove the need for transport by promoting local production.
·               Reduce consumption of fossil fuels thus conserving them into future.
 
Too few people appear to understand the problems we are facing and fewer can see past our current profligate energy consuming ways.  By 2050 we will have to exist on around half our current energy budget.
 
My hope is that this does not fall on deaf ears.
 
Dan

 danny_hannan at yahoo.com 


      Make Yahoo!7 your homepage and win a trip to the Quiksilver Pro. Find out more



More information about the CAMWEST-discuss mailing list