Plan cost effective
The type of emissions scheme that has been proposed is known as a cap and trade model. There are many key features that are thought about in this type of scheme and it can be argued that there are problems with each of these features. The first feature is a “maximum practical coverage of emissions sources and sinks and of all greenhouse gasses. ” This type of feature is not something that would be practical and there is no way that the entire amount of greenhouse gases will be decreased in any way from what has been happening with these sources.
There will be an improvement in that the there will be less greenhouse gases emitted into the environment. A second feature is “a mixture of free allocation and auctioning of single-year dated emissions permits. ” One of the problems with this is the cost of the emissions permits. The argument against the EST is that there will be price increases and that eventually this type of permit will not be affordable.
Another feature is that “a ‘safety valve’ emissions fee designed to limit unanticipated costs to the economy and business. ” This feature is especially important in the beginning years as there is no predictor to how much the cost could differentiate from what was originally thought of when the program was first beginning. However this is another idea that has some great opposition as there are those who believe that this will not be possible and that it is not something that will receive the proper amount of follow through.
The last key feature that can be debated is that there be “recognition of carbon abatement by firms in the lead-up to the commencement of the scheme. ” This can be argued as there are those who want to believe that what is being proposed will have a far higher cost than it will have benefits and therefore it is something that the government should not be concerned with at this time (Bruton 2009). Those who support the EST are in favor because of certain promises to help Australia with their current land problems.
Some of these problems include “dryland salinity, biodiversity loss and general land management that will be directly impacted by climate change. ” The basic premonition is that through ESTs there will be a positive outcome on the client issues and that the clients will be able to better manage their emissions and other types of trading. In the end it is effective to remember that these types of problems will not be solved through the EST.
There are many reasons to believe that these problems will continue to occur even though there has been proposition that they will no longer be problems. Overall there are many reasons that those who are argue against ESTs believe that the there is no way to solve the climate crisis with these changes and therefore there will be further reason to fight against something that in the end will only ending up costing people more money (Jones 2003).
There is much literature that has been written on the overall subject of emissions trading as a part of a global market and the different types of emissions schemes that could work. When outlining the concerns for and against this type of market there were many items outlined in this article that looked at things differently than the proposed EST in Australia and therefore there are some overall differences that can be expected and problems that can be followed up with.
For those who argue against the proposed ETS in Australia there are many reasons here that they could cite as reasons that the proposed EST in Australia will not be effective. This plan for a globalized emissions trading scheme looks at ways of reducing harmful chemical pollutants but also at looking for cost affective ways of doing it. There are many reasons to believe that Australia’s plan did not look at making their plan cost effective (Hasselknippe 2003).