Since the 2007 electoral campaigns between Kevin ‘07’ Rudd and John Howard a National Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has been a hot topic within the global warming debate.
The premise of an ETS is that companies have a ‘cap’ or limit to the amount of pollution (or emissions) they’re allowed to emit. Companies and other entities are issued with an emission permit and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. If a business or entity exceeds this cap then they must pay or ‘trade’ for more allowances from companies who pollute less. In effect polluters are being charged for their excess pollution, while sellers of credits are being rewarded for reducing emissions.
Now, in mid-April 2010, we have seen very little action on the Emissions Trading front with the exception of New Zealand who is the only nation in the world to have an operating Emissions Trading Scheme (however, New Zealand does not have a cap, but an Emissions tax).
Not only has there been crippling inaction on the ETS front, but support for the scheme is wavering with reports stating that US President Barak Obama might have to abandon his proposal for emissions trading in favour of "direct action" in order to steer his carbon-cutting plans through the US Senate.
Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has also made his thoughts about an ETS clear by stating that technological change would offer the major solution in combating global climate change, not setting targets to cut carbon emissions.
Even the New Zealand government is considering abolishing its ETS legislation if its trading partners do not soon follow suit, as the New Zealand government and those opposed to the ETS see it as a handicap on the Kiwi Economy.
So what is the next step our governments should take in the battle against global warming? Let us know your thoughts and comment bellow!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What Rudd needs to do is to actually propose some logical plan (that atleast some experts might be happy on) and to actually get on with the word instead of making wishy, washy, mythical statements to combat global warming. Unfortunately I am very upset that Rudd has been in power, even before he started his day 1 in office because I can see that he is a chatterer than an actual doer. In terms of his ministers in environment? We got bloody Garrett who should not have been in politics the first place, then we got Penny Wong who seems to have no idea what she is rambling on about on TV. I don't think its about "What should Rudd do?" I think its "Rudd should act something" whether good or bad in making an attempt to deliver his promise.
ReplyDelete