> Well in one sense it depends on the prediction. A prediction that in
> one hundred years a combination of sin taxes and carbon trading will be
> a cheaper way to reduce emmissions than a raft of subsidies and fines.
We are certainly in agreement on this point. In fact, I don't think
it's controversial; it has a sort of straw man feeling to it.
If it isn't controversial, why is the world throwing so much money into
subsidies? It is like as if there was two products that did the same
thing and one took twice as much fuel as the other but decided to buy
some of both because both of them will help to get the job done.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
