NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted the Tradable Carbon Quota Proposal and it needs support from delegates.

I strongly urge that it be brought to the general assembly, or that it is reviewed and ammendments are suggested.
It is a constructive piece of international legislation that could do wonders to protect the environment!

Please endorse it asap because it only sustains endorsment procedure untill Wednesday.

Could you perhaps post that for us (just to conform with forum etiquette), as I personally can't find it and I'm interested to see what it's about (as I'm sure others are).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I like the title, though I am sure I will be disappointed by the text.

I thought I'd seen the text posted here either this morning or yesterday. Or maybe I've just finally lost my mind completely... :(

The Tradable Carbon Quota
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.


Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses
Proposed by: Coldseal Windows

Description: Expresses concern of the incompatibility of free market capitalism, in its current state, with the process of reducing carbon emissions and bettering the environment.

Recognises the need for international legislation in this field.

Proposes a solution of creating a global currency (in addition to money) called the tradable carbon quota: (TCQ)

A certain amount of TCQ will be given to all nations, to be distributed to the consumers of the nation, and the businesses.

The purchase of any product or service that results in or has been the cause of any carbon emissions will be labeled a Carbon Emission Trade Product (CETP)and must be purchased with TCQs as well as money. This could be anything from a consumer buying plane tickets to buying a tank of petrol, a local shop having it's waste incinerated to McDonald's shipping large amounts of beef.

The TCQ price will be respective to the amount of harm it causes to the environment.

The distribution of TCQs will be fair so that those who fly private jets around will be those who suffer cold winters, so to speak, not vice versa.

No CETP maybe purchased free of TCQs and the retailer will be punished if caught selling CETPs without receiving the correct price in TCQs.

To enforce this all businesses selling CETPs will have to apply for licenses to do so.

This is a workable method of incorporating mainstream environmentalism into free market capitalism across the globe and effects all nations.


Approvals:
Status: Lacking Support
Voting Ends: Wed Mar 29 2006

Tzorsland's comments:

On second thought, I'm not sure I want to comment. I'm almost posititive this is now how they do it in that fictional place known as the real world. Currency creation? Do I see price fixing? And how do those in private jets suffer from cold winters? (And why are cold winters a bad thing?) No I will not comment at all.

Oh thanks for doing that.:)

Unlike the good delegate from Tzorland, who I am sure has their very good reasons for withholding comments, I will put in my thoughts...

A certain amount of TCQ will be given to all nations, to be distributed to the consumers of the nation, and the businesses.
I am sure that you want to leave this up to the nation to decide distribution, but there will be draconian measures put in place by some nations to keep certain persons from possessing TCQs. Also, I'm not sure if a parallel currency is entirely a good thing.

The purchase of any product or service that results in or has been the cause of any carbon emissions will be labeled a Carbon Emission Trade Product (CETP)and must be purchased with TCQs as well as money. This could be anything from a consumer buying plane tickets to buying a tank of petrol, a local shop having it's waste incinerated to McDonald's shipping large amounts of beef.
Everything humans do result in carbon emissions: we produce them when we breathe (and when we fart :)). Therefore, the purchase of exercise equipment could be labeled as a CETP (not one that costs a lot of TCQs, but one none the less). Also, the RL reference to McDonalds is illegal; you should just say "a fast food restaurant"

The TCQ price will be respective to the amount of harm it causes to the environment.As established by whom? Also, will there by negative TCQ prices when something helps the environment, i.e. planting X trees will make you X TCQs?

The distribution of TCQs will be fair so that those who fly private jets around will be those who suffer cold winters, so to speak, not vice versa.Sorry, this is in no way clear. I think you mean so that we can have heating in cold countries, but I'm not sure...

No CETP maybe purchased free of TCQs and the retailer will be punished if caught selling CETPs without receiving the correct price in TCQs.This is unfair to the retailer; at the very least the consumer should be punished, as well. Otherwise, you're basically punishing the retailer for theft.

To enforce this all businesses selling CETPs will have to apply for licenses to do so.What about non-business entities such as governments?

This is a workable method of incorporating mainstream environmentalism into free market capitalism across the globe and effects all nations. Questionable. At the very least, this should be in the preamble.

I have several concerns with this:
1. What is to stop the purchase of TCQs with money from one group by another; i.e. companies could trade in TCQs, or buy them off of the lower classes, etc.
2. What if a company helps the environment instead of hurting it, buy using reusable materials, replanting trees, etc?
3. The usage of plastic plates is arguably more environmentally friendly than paper plates, but plastic plates (so far as I'm aware) use more carbon. In this way, you are actually punishing the more envirnomental option, because it will cost more TCQs.
4. Once a retailer accepts TCQs, what happens to them? Do they stay on the market, or are they redeemed at a central point? How are new TCQs distributed if the latter option is chosen? What's to stop TCQ hoarding?

I really don't think this resolution works. Sorry.:(

The Republic of Krioval welcomes the contributions of the Coldseal Windows delegation. However, we are concerned that the draft may be suggesting a UN-controlled currency of sorts, which is of questionable legality. Further, we are concerned that leaving decisions on quotas to individual nations does nothing to alleviate the issues brought by the author - nations already determine how much carbon, in its many forms, they will release into the environment.

With heavy modification, including removing references to a UN-controlled currency, this proposal may be salvageable. However, Krioval is not noted for strength in environmental legislation, and as such, any assistance we were to give would be far less valuable than an environmental organization, such as The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank). Good luck to you.

Ambassador Yoshi Takahara
Republic of Krioval

This resolution seems to...er...its hard to describe, but we from Dancing Bananaland don't feel that creating some sort of alternate currency that everyone must use is an effective manner of reducing emissions. Not only could this have a potential negative impact on developing economies, but it would also create an extra headach in everyone's lives (something Dancing Bananalanders hate) and could potentially drive goods prices up the board, as the cost of creating and distributing this new currency would cost money in normal currency and...augh...to summarize we don't like it for a mariad of reasons. Although we must commend the authours "out of the box" apporach to a major probelm.

Is there any benefit for nations that don't use coal as a basic energy source? That is, those who haven't had an industrial revolution?

Or, in other words,
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/pastetech.jpg

Why should Darsomir pay any real attention to a proposal like this?

Is there any benefit for nations that don't use coal as a basic energy source? That is, those who haven't had an industrial revolution?Or those that have moved beyond coal...

If I was to make amendments to it would i be reconsidered?
I rushed it into proposal ceasing my first oppurtnity to have 2 endorsments.

Personally I think it needs a complete rewrite. Amendments won't help you need to approach this issue from the opposite direction. First research the Carbon Trade in a mandatory environment like the EU and a voluntary environment like the US.

European Climate Exchange Webpage. (http://www.europeanclimateexchange.com/index_flash.php)
International Emissions Trading Organization. (http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php)

My recommendation is to start out with a reasonable carbon quote per capita and allow for trading at the national/corporate levels. Insert a provision for the use of member nations to "donate" quota units to nations that are transition from pre-industrial to industrial (a very carbon intensive period in a nation's life) modes. Allow the posibility that some nations will come out winners in any method of carbon trading. That's the fact of FREE TRADE.

If you draft it here, we'll look at it, comment, suggest corrections, etc. Whether you'll receive support or not, that we'll have to determine as you get closer to a final draft.

I thought I'd seen the text posted here either this morning or yesterday. Or maybe I've just finally lost my mind completely... :(
You did, I stuck it in the Silly Proposals thread yesterday.

You did, I stuck it in the Silly Proposals thread yesterday.

Whew! Okay, I feel much better. Thanks.