[GA - Passed] Greenhouse Gas Cap And Trade Program

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sil Dorsett

The Belt Collector
-
-
Deputy Speaker
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
sil_dorsett
Discord
sildorsett

ga.jpg

Greenhouse Gas Cap And Trade Program
Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: All Businesses - Strong
Proposed by: Ransium | Onsite Topic

The World Assembly,

Convinced that the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that some 'greenhouse gases', such as carbon dioxide and methane, allow energy through a planet's atmosphere at the visible and shortwave infrared wavelengths primarily generated by stars, while reflecting energy at longwave thermal wavelengths radiated by a planet, thus creating a net warming effect for that planet's atmosphere,

Acknowledging that within some member nations, the concept of global warming due to non-natural greenhouse gas emissions remains controversial,

Concerned over the many adverse impacts scientific consensus has found sudden and excess warming due to emissions of greenhouse gasses to have directly or indirectly on ecosystems and populations, including disruption and temporal shifting of seasonal cycles at a rate faster than many organisms can adapt, more extreme natural disasters, sea level rise, ocean acidification, crop failures, and desertification,

Aware that many nations' economies are built around fossil fuels and desiring to seek a solution that is minimally disruptive while addressing this pressing problem,

Concluding that the most efficient and cheapest regulatory framework to abate greenhouse gasses is one that caps the total amount of emissions, and divides up credits for the permissible emissions among nations, while allowing the voluntary trading of emissions credits between nations,

Hereby, subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force:

  1. Charges World Assembly Scientific Programme's (WASP) Atmospheric Chemistry Establishment (ACE) to regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses in the following manner:
    • Set a total global annual target for the non-natural release of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, based on current global emissions, scientific climate models for the impact of the gasses, decay rate of the gasses, and the global economic impact of the cap;
    • Distribute allowable emissions credits for each regulated greenhouse gas among member nations proportional to their total populations and present economic output, the global population, and the global cap;
    • Establish preferred emissions levels for non-World Assembly nations also proportional to factors listed in b;
    • Establish (i) punitive fees for emissions beyond the cap for member nations, and (ii) tariffs that all member nations shall enforce on the trade goods produced by non-member nations whose emissions exceed their preferred levels; the proceeds of both the fees and tariffs will first go to ACE's monitoring and enforcement efforts and any remaining monies will go towards grants to fund the research, development, and implementation of green energy;
    • Establish an exchange for the voluntary trade of emissions credits open to all member nations, such that some nations may exceed their initially allotted emissions without punitive action via buying credits;
    • Create an annual schedule of diminishing total global caps for various gasses until levels scientifically modeled to be globally sustainable are met;
    • Monitor the net emissions of individual nations, taking into account both greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration, via voluntary disclosures and other non-invasive methods, such as remote sensing that is sensitive to the narrowband absorption features of targeted greenhouse gases;

  2. Further mandates that ambassadors representing non-compliant member nations be forced to wear itchy wool sweaters during the summer, unless doing so would be a threat to their health or conflict with religious or moral beliefs;

  3. Notes that individual nations will determine how to best meet their preferred target internally; and

  4. Clarifies that greenhouse gas emissions through natural sources, such as volcanoes, will not be considered by ACE for the purposes of this resolution.

Co-authored by imperium_anglorum
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
Against, the WA is far too vast for this to work and this would harm global economies where greenhouse gasses aren't a problem for environmental sustainability
 
It's very well written. I was initially going to vote against, but the fact that this resolution provides an enforcement method that is flexible and allows countries some room to maneuver is good. The wool sweater thing is unnecessary. Whatever. Never thought I'd say this, but:

FOR
 
Against.
Cap and Trade schemes simply attempt to make a commodity of pollution, instead of actually addressing the problem in a realistic manner. They are a grotesque neoliberal solution to humanitarian crisis. It's a stall, designed to generate profit from tragedy during transition, and it ignores the fact that the generation of profit is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place. Why go to all this trouble (tariffs, trade banks, credit swapping), when simply placing a hard cap (that diminishes over time) on all nations, and enforcing it, is such a simple alternative? Why do we need this unnecessary economic component?

The largest industries tend to generate the most greenhouse gasses: Oil, Gas, Coal, Automotive, Meat production, etc. They also happen to be the industries with the largest margins, and most able to purchase extra credits. To a degree, this defeats the purpose, and gives the worst polluters little incentive to take immediate steps. These companies will not innovate, or invest in greener solutions, they will simply pay more to pollute, and pass those costs onto consumers, for as long as they can.

Certain industries are going to have to change or they're going to have to go away. The best way to get them to make that transition, reinvent themselves, retool for the future, is to make it absolutely clear that they have no other option.
 
The largest industries tend to generate the most greenhouse gasses: Oil, Gas, Coal, Automotive, Meat production, etc. They also happen to be the industries with the largest margins, and most able to purchase extra credits. To a degree, this defeats the purpose, and gives the worst polluters little incentive to take immediate steps. These companies will not innovate, or invest in greener solutions, they will simply pay more to pollute, and pass those costs onto consumers, for as long as they can.

Certain industries are going to have to change or they're going to have to go away. The best way to get them to make that transition, reinvent themselves, retool for the future, is to make it absolutely clear that they have no other option.
I disagree. I think that while these steps allow governments to regulate industries in their own ways in order to meet the commitments or be fined. It provides flexibility to governments, and gives time for industries to reinvent themselves in the transition period. Without that flexibility, the resolution would impose requirements on member nations that they may not be able to meet.
 
Against.
Cap and Trade schemes simply attempt to make a commodity of pollution, instead of actually addressing the problem in a realistic manner. They are a grotesque neoliberal solution to humanitarian crisis. It's a stall, designed to generate profit from tragedy during transition, and it ignores the fact that the generation of profit is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place. Why go to all this trouble (tariffs, trade banks, credit swapping), when simply placing a hard cap (that diminishes over time) on all nations, and enforcing it, is such a simple alternative? Why do we need this unnecessary economic component?

The largest industries tend to generate the most greenhouse gasses: Oil, Gas, Coal, Automotive, Meat production, etc. They also happen to be the industries with the largest margins, and most able to purchase extra credits. To a degree, this defeats the purpose, and gives the worst polluters little incentive to take immediate steps. These companies will not innovate, or invest in greener solutions, they will simply pay more to pollute, and pass those costs onto consumers, for as long as they can.

Certain industries are going to have to change or they're going to have to go away. The best way to get them to make that transition, reinvent themselves, retool for the future, is to make it absolutely clear that they have no other option.

FOR

Though what bowloftoast describes has actually happened in the EU, costing german households billions alone. So yeah, it does not work in RL.
 
I disagree. I think that while these steps allow governments to regulate industries in their own ways in order to meet the commitments or be fined. It provides flexibility to governments, and gives time for industries to reinvent themselves in the transition period. Without that flexibility, the resolution would impose requirements on member nations that they may not be able to meet.
In theory; but, in reality it doesn't work out that way. It just delays the inevitable, and allows the worst offenders to conduct business as usual, while placing the greatest burden on smaller businesses and individuals - those least responsible for emissions.
Relying on corporations to self-regulate doesn't work, because corporations are beholden to share-holders, and are legally obliged to do that which makes the most money for their share-holders. Corporations, particularly multi-nationals, dodge the fines by purchasing extra credits, making it possible for companies to defy the law of their nations indefinitely. It creates a scenario where a single industry may have carte blanche to pollute well above the national cap, and there is nothing a nation can do about it because they have purchased extra credit. Fines by the WA against nations will be borne by the citizens, and those least responsible will be penalized, while the corporations remain untouched and unchanged.
Like I said, if you provide a loophole, it will be exploited. You have to put companies into a position where they have to change, or they perish. Nothing drives innovation like a deadline.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top