EnviroEconomics.ca » large emitters

Posts Tagged ‘large emitters’

A One Oared Climate Policy: “So, what about the rest of the emitters?”

Posted on December 18, 2007, 2:39 pm, by Dave Sawyer, under Emissions Pricing, Instrument Choice.

Andrew Leach , an environmental economist out of U of A, has good article in the Edmonton Journal today on an issue that one can’t help but see in the media: a contradiction in Canada’s domestic and international climate policies. His point is simply that while Canada is calling for binding targets [...]

Tags: cap and trade, carbon tax, climate policy, economics, environmental economics, large emitters
No Comments | Read the rest of this entry »

Scribbles

April 15, 2010
Um, what climate change rules? Ottawa puts up barrier to Sinopec bitumen exports. Ottawa says it will use its regulatory power to stop Chinese state-controlled Sinopec from exporting raw oil sands bitumen and refining it abroad to take advantage of looser climate-change rules.

February 11, 2010
Organized crime and the EU ETS Immature markets with poor oversight and cash on the table necessarily leads to fraud. Forget offset aggregation to make cash. Good old fraud is a growth business, so sayeth the article: "The participation of the United States and other major economies like Japan would create a global market that could be worth up to $3 trillion annually by 2020, compared with its current annual value of $130 billion"

February 11, 2010
A nice overview of where we are in Canadian climate policy Some interesting stuff here.

January 27, 2010
The disonnect between EUA prices, fundamentals A good read indeed. Some reasons why the EU is over allocating as the economy deflates, and energy markets price gas below coal. This is then driving fuel switching absent policy, and so leading to permit surpluses. This line says it all: "In the short-term, that means the market is structurally long, even before importing CERs or ERUs."

January 25, 2010
Scrap ETS and go for a carbon tax: Garnaut For those who have helped influence climate policy, there comes a time when your preference for a tax must be shelved in favor of cap-and-trade due to political pressures. This may explain Garnault's about face on cap-and-trade. Or perhaps I should say a tax in disquise -- low and fixed price ceiling.

January 24, 2010
Prentice insists he's a 'passionate conservationist' Apparently, inaction does not come from the Minister but the PM. Word on the street is that at least three climate policy proposals have been brought to cabinet and three have been rejected. So inaction as in prorogation comes from the top.