Why personal carbon allowances will not reduce carbon emissions

Personal carbon allowances has been offered as a solution to save the planet. What its devisors mean is that every human should have personal carbon emission quota. If you exceed your emission quota you will have to buy unused quota from someone who has quota to spare.

Some strongly hold the belief that a personal carbon allowance is the way to reduce carbon dioxide emission. I disagree; it is probably a way to spread wealth from rich countries to poor countries but no more than that. I cannot see it making a positive contribution to reducing carbon emissions. Continue reading

China moves to the top of the Emission League Table

 The United States of America has 4% of the world’s population but produces within its borders around 25% of the world’s carbon emissions. The USA (and at the time Australia) refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty on emission reduction and was much criticised for refusing to adhere to it, but the USA had reasons which had some foundation.

 

It argued that the developing nations, China and India in particular, had not signed up to any emission reduction and would not do so until they had reached a higher range of emissions. Kyoto had allowed this massive loophole in order not to hinder growth in the developing nations; we in the west have our prosperity and we should not prevent those in the east from enjoying theirs, the argument ran. Continue reading