Carbon Emission Quotas, May need a better name...

Yeah, but the problem is that people who do a hell of alot of polluting NOW will get their allotted credits for free and then be able to sell them if they want.

Besides, if the carbon credits exist in any kind of free market, net pollution will never go down. You're just moving it around from poor nations to rich ones.

Douria: Good point. Hm. Er. Going to have to have it be delayed until the start of Janurary 1st, just to avoid the 'allocated credits' problem. (Or, heh, start the first Carbon Credit allocation on Earth Day)

And, yeah, the Free Market quote is true (altough trading is not the only way to gain Carbon Credits, enviromental projects also work). But, the original goal of this resolution (which has since been proven to be stupid) was to provide political cover for any future reductions in Carbon Emissions, by having it boost the economies of all nations via the free trade of carbon credits. Even now, however, any future reduction in Carbon Emissions can use this Proposal to justify such a reduction, in that they can claim it "won't harm poor countries".

Subject to revision, as always. I'm not exactly happy with 3b and may seek to change it though...

I think the definition is a little weird. I don't know much chemistry, but I would strongly bet different industrial processes yield different effects, and hence it might be better to define it in terms of product, not fodder: one of ton of carbon dioxide emitted. (I would also note that there are non-carbon emissions that need regulating, but let's keep it simple for now.)

More importantly, I still don't see how 2(b) can even pretend to be legal. FFRA says nations have to decrease their emissions by x%; not that they can buy their way out of that prerogative. While your approach arguably makes sense, previous legislation has imposed limits by nation. You can't simply ignore those limits.

In the following year, The Republic of UN Member Nation is required to decrease its emissions by at least 2%. Given it was granted 100x carbon units the previous year, this now means it only has 98x carbon units. Allowing UN Member Nation to buy anymore carbon units is either illegal (because exceeding 98x carbon units contradicts FFRA) or stupid (because, knowing this, no nation would make such a purchase).

If you are going to use the same national approach as previous legislation, the only room for a trading system is if you set a supply of carbon units below the current ceiling level, meaning nations can trade up a bit if they want.

You might consider, though, not taking such a national approach. After all, in many countries it'll be private firms that actually need the carbon units. They absolutely can trade carbon units; they still have to obey, and member nations enforce, rules on national emission levels, but that doesn't matter so long as TNCs are able to spread the sites of their emissions around.

An additional suggestion: you could allow the UNEA to purchase, using any excess funds or donations specified for that purpose, carbon units off the market to further promote research and development.

:rolleyes: Can it.

There's also a few grammar spots, but they can be fixed in the final draft.

Thanks Gruen. Will hopefully fix up the grammar in the final draft.

New revision.

Mmm. Nope. Someone beat you to it, and there's no way you can top this: