Oh noez! /s

  • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I don’t think that selling licenses to pollute is a good strategy to reduce pollution (it needs to be reduced to zero ASAP).

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 minutes ago

      Sure, but it won’t be with that mindset. Entrenched interests will fight tooth and nail, and typically win yielding ZERO reductions and often expansions of pollution.

      Cap and Trade works, and we have a real world experience showing it. Here’s a great example from the 1980s in the USA fighting acid rain pollution (Sulfer Dioxide emissions into the air)

      "The stated purpose of the Acid Rain Program was to reduce total annual SO2 emissions in the US by ten million tons relative to 1980, when total US emissions were about 26 million tons. In a departure from conventional environmental regulation, the legislation did not prescribe how power plants would reduce their SO2 emissions. Instead, with a phase-in beginning in 1995 and culminating in 2000, the statute capped aggregate SO2 emissions at the nation’s 3,200 coal plants and created a market for firms to buy and sell government-issued allowances to emit SO2. " source

      We could have had 15 years of CO2 emissions reductions starting in 2010, but your idea of “needs to reduce ASAP” worked to kill it then. source.