Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch
Where did you get this idea? If you reduce emissions physically, there is no tax. If it is cheaper to buy the credits, you buy the credits. Kyoto basically set a cost of doing nothing, something which currently does not exist. It is possible for many companies, industries, etc to reduce emissions via better infrastructure/technology in a cost free manner - not universally true, but nobody really knows the extent to which "free pollution" is creating inefficient behaviour. As I've stated earlier, I've seen many examples where emissions could be reduced at a net savings - sometimes implemented, sometimes not. With a cost tied to doing nothing, the decision is much clearer and does not necessarily add anything to long-run cost.
|
Lurch, business is growing, looking oil as an example, the world demand is growing, Alberta is large, politically stable, source near a massive market. The Alberta projects will be the most economical no matter what, the only difference being that they will have another layer of tax on them.
Kyoto had absolute targets, well, when production grows the targets shrink on a per unit scale making unfathomable targets impossible.