In a country, companies that have carbon credits sell them to comPanies that have lack of carbon credits. Eventually company B emit more carbon and campany A reduce emission on be half of sold credits. This implies that the tatal emission from both comany remain same. Is this idea correct?
This has been used as a criteria to stop carbon emission in many countries. On the other hand the principal idea of restricting climate change impacts on human health are ignored. A balance between human health risk and the extend of carbon emission which is creditable should be established on a case by case basis. No single general rule or standards for regulation in all parts of the world is advisable.
To me I think it is a zero sum way of combating climate change. If you pay not to pollute for you to pollute makes no sense. However, what makes sense to me is the capping of the emissions. We need to follow the capping as per the Paris Agreement.
I think biodiversity conservation and increase sequestering potential of producer community is one of the road maps
This is to cut short the emission from one company whichever company can and the other company can purchase and emit more than capped allowance (e.g. 1 ton).
Capping- government allowance to company A = 1 ton (Company A emitted only half of it)
Trading- company B purchases half credit from company A.
This is a flexible allowance system which reduced 30% of SO2 emission during 1993-2002(EPA's Acid Rain Program). After it's success NO2 Budget Trading Program(NBP) is adopted in 2003.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Atmosphere