test post test post

Will try and make that last comment clearer, if this works! ..................... Achieving a Copenhagen solution that benefits all - whatever one's view on CO2 and global warming To begin with It's unfortunate that those against CO2 reduction schemes are ridiculed as "not believing that global warming is taking place". The point most skeptics make is if CO2 reduction schemes really will affect the progress of global warming, a point also made by those initially raising the alarm bells eg James Lovelock. Ironically, A local focus on electricity and transport alone (80% of CO2 emissions), with advantages to all regardless of the CO2 issue, would give the necessary 2020/2030 reductions anyway http://ceolas.net/#cc1x Moreover, it would not have to impact greatly on consumers in terms of cost, given long term industrial EU/state guaranteed loans, as described on the website. If the (unjustified) need is felt to target consumers, then energy efficiency based taxation - instead of bans- on light bulbs, dishwashers, buildings, cars etc, would (unlike the bans) at least raise additional significant funds that could be used for these and other environmental measures, while also reducing sales (like the bans), yet keeping consumer choice Just looking at ordinary incandescent type light bulbs: 2 billion sales of them in each of the EU and USA 2008, the preferred consumer choice around 9 times out of 10 as by the European Commission's own analysis. . Unfortunately.... The EU authorities are happy to alienate EU consumers by telling them how they should live their lives, what they can or can't use in their homes, that "everyone has to CUT DOWN and save" - instead of positively dealing with PROVIDING any energy supply that is needed, with any emission limits that is seen as necessary. Unfortunately.... the EU and Copenhagen talk is also of extending the Kyoto and EU Carbon trading schemes. The problem with emission trading is particularly in the short term, that everyone now considers so important, since any squeeze on allowance permits takes years to kick in, all the more so with the free allowance handouts and offset schemes. The "No Goldilocks Solution", as seen in the EU where the problem with carbon prices is they are either too low and so cheap and meaningless as in recession times, or too high to lead to any reduction at other times, when evasive action for example involves paying off third world emitters (who according to a recent Economist article can simply be set up to rake in cash ie they would not be emitting otherwise), or tree planting exercises of dubious effect, which may in any case be fast growing non-native trees which changes local ecosystems. An artificial market will always be an artificial market. _______________ Understanding Emission Trading (Cap and Trade) - and why it doesn't work http://ceolas.net/#cce5x Basic Idea Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair Trading Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs -- Allowance Trading Companies: Business Stability + Cost In Conclusion

Achieving a Copenhagen solution that benefits all -whatever their view on global warming To begin with It's unfortunate that those against CO2 reduction schemes are ridiculed as "not believing that global warming is taking place". The point most skeptics make is if CO2 reduction schemes really will affect the progress of global warming, a point also made by those initially raising the alarm bells eg James Lovelock. Ironically, A local focus on electricity and transport alone (80% of CO2 emissions), with advantages to all regardless of the CO2 issue, would give the necessary 2020/2030 reductions anyway http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x Moreover, it would not have to impact greatly on consumers in terms of cost, given long term industrial EU/state guaranteed loans, as described on the website. If the (unjustified) need is felt to target consumers, then energy efficiency based taxation - instead of bans- on light bulbs, dishwashers, buildings, cars etc, would (unlike the bans) at least raise additional significant funds that could be used for these and other environmental measures, while also reducing sales (like the bans), yet keeping consumer choice Just looking at ordinary incandescent type light bulbs: 2 billion sales of them in each of the EU and USA 2008, the preferred consumer choice around 9 times out of 10 as by the European Commission's own analysis. Unfortunately.... The EU authorities are happy to alienate EU consumers by telling them how they should live their lives, what they can or can't use in their homes, that "everyone has to CUT DOWN and save" - instead of positively dealing with PROVIDING any energy supply that is needed, with any emission limits that is seen as necessary. Unfortunately.... the EU and Copenhagen talk is also of extending the Kyoto and EU Carbon trading schemes. The problem with emission trading is particularly in the short term, that everyone now considers so important, since any squeeze on allowance permits takes years to kick in, all the more so with the free allowance handouts and offset schemes. The "No Goldilocks Solution", as seen in the EU where the problem with carbon prices is they are either too low and so cheap and meaningless as in recession times, or too high to lead to any reduction at other times, when evasive action for example involves paying off third world emitters (who according to a recent Economist article can simply be set up to rake in cash ie they would not be emitting otherwise), or tree planting exercises of dubious effect, which may in any case be fast growing non-native trees which changes local ecosystems. An artificial market will always be an artificial market. _______________ Understanding Emission Trading (Cap and Trade) - and why it doesn't work http://ceolas.net/#cce5x Basic Idea Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair Trading Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs -- Allowance Trading Companies: Business Stability + Cost In Conclusion