<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.opendemocracy.net" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>open Democracy News Analysis - eu - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/global_deal/eu</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;eu&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>richard on &quot;Saying no to markets&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/global_deal/carbon_markets#comment-438516</link>
 <description>The Green Party has advocated carbon taxes for as long as I can remember (which is admittedly, not necessarily very long these days), but went on to adopt carbon trading a couple of years ago because taxes are a pretty vague way of going about a very serious business. Economists speak of &quot;elasticity&quot; with carbon taxes; basically, people moan about rising prices, but then just keep on truckin&#039; because - well, frankly, we&#039;re addicted to oil. Mr Wolf says that tradeable carbon credits sounds like rationing. Well, that is because it is rationing. 

It all comes down to our perception of how serious the situation is. Looks as if Mr Wolf sees AGW as a bit of a nuisance, plenty of time to do something about it. The scientists and environmentalists take a different view.

I see no reason not to do both taxes and quotas. The taxes should be hypothecated to energy efficiency and renewables, in order to minimise the grumbles of the taxed.</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>richard</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 438516 at http://www.opendemocracy.net</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
