I haven't had much luck convincing people that a big issue in reducing fossil fuel use is in the value of the fossil fuel assets to the regions that have them.
This article recognizes that - but not only is it on a site for science news, it's stuck in the "Mathematics & Economics" section.
It won't get much attention there.
"Environmental policy has historically been driven by a demand-side mindset -- attempting to limit consumption of precious fossil fuels through pollution permits, taxation, and multi-national climate change treaties. However, new research from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University suggests that actually buying coal, oil and other dirty fossil fuel deposits still in the ground could be a far better way to fight climate change. The new study, "Buy Coal! A Case for Supply-Side Environmental Policy," suggests that the single best policy for a multi-national climate coalition is to purchase the extraction rights of dirty fossil fuels in non-participating countries (also called "third countries"), and then conserve rather than exploit the deposits. According to the study's author, Bard Harstad, this would be a radical departure from the traditional view that focuses on reducing the demand for fuel."I suggest the experience of the USA and Australia - and emerging in Canada - indicate a domestic reduction in consumption leads to an increase in exports. In Australia's case, and with the province of British Columbia, carbon taxation policies at home are accompanied by exemptions on exports.
This article provides a saner point-of-view. Read the entire article here
No comments:
Post a Comment