DRAFT: World carbon trading scheme

[the Evans]

Council: General Assembly
Category: Environmental
Name: World carbon trading scheme
Industry affected: All Businesses
Strength: Strong

RECALLING resolution #42 which established the WA Environmental Council to conduct research into the environment

RECOGNISING that climate change caused by massive carbon emissions has the potential to destroy vast swathes of property, industry and business

PROPOSING a new system of trading credits for carbon emissions, in an effort to reduce carbon emissions worldwide and to ensure mankinds continued existence in our environment

SECTION 1: World carbon credit
Every person in a member nation has a certain amount of credits allotted to them per year

Credit may be traded just as any other commodity.

SECTION 2:
a) Establishing the World carbon bank
RECOGNISING that initially there will be a global deficit of credits, the WA establishes the World Carbon Bank (WCB)

Credits may be sold to the carbon bank for 50% of the standard market price

Credits may be purchased from the carbon bank for 150% of the standard market price

b) Carbon bank spending
Nations, businesses and individuals implementing schemes to reduce carbon emissions may apply to the WCB for up to 100% of the funding required

Nations, businesses and individuals implementing schemes to absorb emitted carbon may apply to the WCB for up to 50% of the funding required, and a further 50% as a low interest loan

SUMMARISING
Nations, businesses and individuals will be required to reduce carbon emissions or pay extra money to buy more tokens. Carbon reduction schemes worldwide will be funded by the WCB, which will reduce carbon emissions to the environment and be motivated by cutting costs to tax payers, businesses and individuals.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Wow. I really like this. Just fix some capitalization and punctuation and you're set. Oh and use nation instead of country. It's more formal.

[Cats Keep]

SECTION 1: World carbon credit
Every person has a certain amount of credits allotted to them per year

Sounds like this attempts to impose on NON Member nations, and thus Illegal.

[Edvardus]

To: World Assembly Members
From: The Office of the Emperor of Edvardus

The idea of reducing the crippling effects of climate change is commendable and something with which I agree. However, there is a serious moral implication of a carbon trading scheme. Carbon trading instills a sense of carbon emissions as the property of emitters. Therefore, emitters are entitled to continue emitting carbon, albeit less carbon theoretically.

The most sensible solution from the viewpoint of economists in Edvardus is to implement a carbon tax on carbon emissions, eliminating this negative externality instead of grandfathering it. Morally it also instills a sense that carbon emission at any level is reprehensible.

Man-made climate change is a result of us not being faithful stewards of God's creation. The world cannot wait for politically convenient solutions that pander to special interest groups like the oil and coal industries, who feel entitled to continue polluting.

[Armed Infidels]

I like this Idea

[Absolvability]

The most sensible solution from the viewpoint of economists in Edvardus is to implement a carbon tax on carbon emissions, eliminating this negative externality instead of grandfathering it. Morally it also instills a sense that carbon emission at any level is reprehensible.

While I really wouldn't know what god thinks on the subject, I can at least agree with the Ambassador from Edvardus. It does seem like creating a currency for carbon emissions is a terribly 'friendly,' approach to the problem, and also stands a great chance of perpetuating the problem at some later date when we find ourselves more willing to make necessary changes but... we'd crash the economy by revoking all of these carbon emission poker chips.

[Morlago]

Carbon tax?! Are you nuts? Do you know how many nations are out there that have their economy listed as struggling/fragile/weak? THese developing nations are most likely to use more carbon and oil etc. If you go on making carbon tax these nation will become extinct before you can count to ten.

[Absolvability]

Carbon tax?! Are you nuts? Do you know how many nations are out there that have their economy listed as struggling/fragile/weak? THese developing nations are most likely to use more carbon and oil etc. If you go on making carbon tax these nation will become extinct before you can count to ten.

It seems to me that a struggling economy would be able to make the adjustment easier than a progressive one. Granted, the progressive one has more money available, but their changes will also be far more drastic. No doubt they have stock markets and banking systems fully invested in carbon emission related industry.

An already struggling economy will probably still end up beneath those more fortunate, but only because that's where they began.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

RECALLING resolution #42 which established the WA Environmental Council to conduct research into the environment

This draft needs to be able to withstand the repeal of resolution #42, honoured ambassador.

[the Evans]

SECTION 1: World carbon credit
Every person has a certain amount of credits allotted to them per year

Sounds like this attempts to impose on NON Member nations, and thus Illegal.

It wasn't intended as that, reworded to explicitly indicate that it's simply member nations

... carbon tax ...

A trading scheme is, in my opinion, better than a tax - nations who are already below their quotas can profit off a carbon trading scheme, while nations who are above their quotas make a loss. This system encourages all levels (individuals, businesses and nations) to cut back on carbon emissions, while rewarding those who do a good job.

However, let me make it clear - this is, basically, a carbon tax with a built in reward scheme. Unlike taxes, however, this system is self regulating in cost.

RECALLING resolution #42 which established the WA Environmental Council to conduct research into the environment

This draft needs to be able to withstand the repeal of resolution #42, honoured ambassador.

I believe it can, I simply reference #42 as an indication of general will to help the environment

[the Evans]

I'm going to go ahead and post this, since there seems to be no criticism of the new draft.

[Glen-Rhodes]

(OOC: Is this scheme not just one giant tax levied against member nations? Aside from House of Cards issues, the World Assembly cannot impose taxes, a la WAR#17.)

[the Evans]

No, it's not a tax, because world wide it's a zero sum game, just like all other economies

[Tanaara]

No, it's not a tax, because world wide it's a zero sum game, just like all other economies

However, let me make it clear - this is, basically, a carbon tax with a built in reward scheme. Unlike taxes, however, this system is self regulating in cost.

False - It can not be Zero Sum - as it applies only to WA member nations - and as you stated yourself it IS a Tax- built in reward scheme or not

(OOC: Is this scheme not just one giant tax levied against member nations? Aside from House of Cards issues, the World Assembly cannot impose taxes, a la WAR#17.)

HoC, and Tax - thus illegal

[the Evans]

It can be a zero sum game, all stable economies are zero sum games, the only place any money/credits enters and leaves the system is the carbon credit bank, which is only there to get the scheme going - the trading prices are deliberately fixed to be really bad to discourage frequent trading with the bank. It's not a tax for this reason, it's an economy.

It's not a house of cards, because it doesn't actually rely on the recalled policy for anything - it's simply providing a bit of history.

[Malikov]

Firstly, lets take a step back and look at what the author is trying to accomplish. From my understanding the author is trying to reduce carbon emission, correct? However, if the goal of reduced carbon emission is to slow the affects of climate change, then I feel compelled to inform you that Greenhouse Gases are not contributing faactors to global climate change. There are stacks of evidence to support this, so let me list some of the strongest, and simplests reasons here:

1) Underneath the earths surface there is a large sphere of molten magma. This magma swirls around, in what are called convection currents. In short, the magma will heat up, when it reaches the very core of the Earth, causing it to rise. Once the magma has risen to a certain point however, it starts to sink past hotter magma, back to the center of the Earth. Once it reaches the center again the process repeats itself. This cycle takes an extremely long time, which accounts for the extreme heat during the time of the dinosaurs, and the extreme cold during the Ice Age. Going farther back in history, it is evident that this has been going on since the dawn of Earth. We can prove this by looking at the particle content of Artic, and Antarctic ice core samples.

2) The fearmongering of carbon warming the Earth started after Al Gore made a video, dipicting the massive amounts of carbon being released into the atmosphere, while the global temperature rose, increasingly each year. This is a coincidence. In fact, a single vlocanic eruption will release more carbon into the air, then humans would be able to release in one-hundred years (releasing at our current rate, that is). Furthermore, because the Earth is warming, due to convection currents, there will be an increased frequency in the number of volcanic eruptions.

3) Lastly, reducing the amount of carbon in the air is not beneficial to vegetation. Most people are unaware that trees are dependant on carbon for their survival. Mammals are dependant on trees for survival, as we all know. Trees need carbon, to create oxygen. During the day, a tree will "inhale" carbon. This has been proven, during the day carbon concentration within the tree is higher, and they actually swell. During the night however, trees "exhale" and release oxygen. If the amount of carbon in the air is reduced to much, then trees wil not have enough carbon to produce oxygen, lowering the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, thus killing all large forms of life on Earth, as we know it.

I am all for reducing greenhouse gases, don't get me wrong. Greenhouse gases are pollution, and can cause many health problems within humans. An increase in allergic sensitivity, respiratory issues, ect... but I dont want to inact a proposal that taxes citizens for an unstopable, force of nature. I would support the proposal, however, if changes were made to tax personal greenhouse gas emissions. You would monitor your carbon output, and be taxed on that pertentage. People will reduce their carbon output, to lower the amout of taxation. The whole carbon credit bit is unneccesary.

I hope that you make the suggested changes, so as to stop an unneccesary taxation of the global community.

[the Evans]

Whatever reason we wish to reduce carbon dioxide emission, be it health or environmental factors, I believe this is the best way of doing it.

First of all, the world assembly may not impose taxes, which would make your suggested changes illegal.

Secondly, this scheme is very flexible to different forms of government.

Finally, the credits scheme is designed to reward people who reduced their emissions - they put in an initial investment but now they can profit by selling spare credits to other people/nations.

[Absolvability]

If the source of the earth's standard temperature is it's core (which I have no trouble believing,) and it acts like a convection oven (still no trouble,) I still don't see how this causes the earth's temperature to rise or fall unless somehow the core temperature is fluctuating. Otherwise, convection being a near perpetual and highly fluid process, shouldn't we see much more consistancy?

The rising and falling of heated magma describes cyclic activity; therefore the temperature of the magma closest to the earth's crust should be constant... unless of course the temperature of the core is fluctuating. And if it is fluctuating, I sure don't see how it could possibly be getting hotter. If anything it would be getting cooler-- the coolest of which would be on the outside, making us cooler.

[the Evans]

Gentlemen, can we try and stay on topic please.

[Spredronia]

Hmm, is this just a fancy way of saying "carbon tax"?

If it is, then full oppose.

[the Evans]

No, it's not a tax, because it's a closed system, it's a carbon economy. 50% of countries will make a loss, 50% will make a profit (just like all economies)

[Absolvability]

I don't believe we were off-topic, Ambassador. The Representative from Malikov seems to think that global warming is strictly a natural process and therefore carbon emissions do not need to be regulated. Which could make your proposal negligible from an environmentalist stand-point. Furthermore, he asserts that plants require carbon to live... and that mammals (including humans,) require plants to live, which seems to be a shot at the potential health benefits of your proposal. While the last sentiment is obviously true, I believe the Representative fails to recognize the difference between carbon, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide.

More to the immediate point, however, I have rethought my initial stance and believe that the carbon credit scheme is a pretty clever idea. Furthermore, I wouldn't say it constitutes a tax. I do have some concerns, however. Who produces these credits? Who regulates how many are in circulation at a given time? Otherwise we'll quickly be right back where we are now... but with shiney little credits.

Also, what exactly do you mean that businesses working to reduce their carbon emissions may apply for 100% assistance from the WCB? Does the WCB hand out credits, or money?

Oh, and how else can these credits be traded? I ask this to establish how one might ever decide what the 'standard market price' is. Otherwise the fact that they can be sold to the WCB for 50% doesn't make a lot of sense.

[the Evans]

The actual merit of the scheme itself is what is decided when this goes for a full vote, which is why I consider any discussion about global warming off topic. Although I don't suppose it's really an issue if we go off topic...

The credits are allocated per citizen, which means they simply pop into existence once every year, they disappear when carbon is emitted. The amount of credits will be determined as the total amount of carbon which is safe to be emitted into the atmosphere/Number of people on the planet.

The WCB hands out money, they make their money through the selling of credits at 150% market rate. Companies/individuals/nations who come up with a scheme to reduce carbon output can apply for funding for this scheme.

Credits are traded just like any other commodity, determining the value of a credit can be done in the same way any currency can be valued.

[Opola]

This is completely outrageous why should the WA tell nations with a free market control pollution in our countries....completely disgusting.

[Deschenek]

No, it's not a tax, because it's a closed system, it's a carbon economy. 50% of countries will make a loss, 50% will make a profit (just like all economies)

just like a tax where 95% of the people lose money (the average joes)
and 5% of the people make a lot of money (government)
except its 50/50 instead of 95/5

it is still baasically a souped up tax in disguise

why is this like all economies exactly? various commodities traded can make various profits for all economies due to supply and demand

example: country a (a wastland nation) buys food for cheap from agriculture based nation b and government a can sell high prices still due to not much food in wastleland while country b buys nuclear weapons for cheap from wastelland country and seliing them high not much nuecleur weapons in an agriculture based society thus a net profit for all due to high prices in the society
It is possible for all nations to make a net profit.