Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> Oikos
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
International Law
: OikosGarnaut review - emissions trading scheme discussion paper
By David Jeffery
The big issue appears to be whether to auction permits or hand them out to exsiting emitters. More on this from me later, but it seems the debate has finally moved beyond the myth coming from the electricity industry that they need to be issued with free permits or else electricity prices will rise, disproportionately hurting the poor who spend a greater proportion of their income on energy. Electricity prices will inevitably rise under an emissions trading scheme: to a large extent, that's the point. Giving handouts to existing generators in the hope that they pass some savings on to households and not just their shareholders is naive - particularly when their competitors (new entrants to the market) will have to buy permits on the open market. And it's not necessary: the best way to compensate poor households, surely, is to use the revenue gained from auctioning permits to target tax cuts at lower incomes.
On that point, I notice that petrol producers have run the same line in recent days: petrol should be exempt from an emissions trading scheme because families are struggling enough with petrol prices already. Aside from the fact that these kind of suggestions wholly undermine the aim of a trading scheme, there's better ways to help out struggling families than subsidising their energy use. How about reducing their overall tax burden? They can spend their savings on petrol if they so desire but how about we leave it up to them what they spend it on, rather than what petrol or electricity companies think they should spend it all on (oddly enough, petrol and electricity)?
Full post as published by Oikos on March 25, 2008 (boomark / email).
Trading Fraud
Former stock trader to pay $55,000 in CFTC settlement.
Hershey Co. et al.
allegedly involved in a chocolate price fixing scheme.
Wesley A. Snyder et al.
alleging the consultants perpetrated a Ponzi scheme by encouraging borrowers to lend more than they needed.
FDA Issues Update on Safety Review Orlistat
Orlistat FDA Issues Update on Safety Review
Aurora Loan Faces Class Action over Mortgage Review Services
Aurora Loan Faces Class Action over Mortgage Review Services
FDA Review of Prostate Cancer Treatment Prompts Warning of Risk for Diabetes
Prostate Cancer Treatment FDA Review Prompts Warning of Risk for Diabetes

Emissions Trading Scheme Discussion Paper
Garnaut Climate Change Review Draft Report
Garnaut Climate Change Review Final Report
Greenhouse gas emissions in transport, land-use and buildings
de Sépibus on EU Emmissions Trading
Garnaut Review climate change update







