Thread by @swardley

X : Thoughts on Carbon Markets.
Me : The wrong way to solve the problem.
X : Eh?
Me : They are open to gross exploitation. I don't agree with them, never have. There are better ways in my view.
X : How?

Me : Every citizen should be given a non transferable permit for Carbon emission. A permit allows for an specified emission decided annually by negotiation between countries. Citizens have the right to sell or not to sell their annual output for one year on an open market ...

... so for example. citizen in the UK might get X kg and in another country they get Y Kg depending upon agreed emission divided by population. Companies must be required to calculate and buy the annual emission required from the market ...

... in other words, you need to buy the total emission of your operation from ordinary citizens. The permits are not transferable, no-one can accumulate, only the annual emission can sold on the market to private companies or other citizens. Only citizens can sell.

You can now control emission through agreed action by countries or by citizen action. Refusing to sell will force the price up on the market until some do, creating even more pressure for emission reduction.

X : Isn't that a market?
Me : It is a citizen centric market which is not what these Carbon markets are. I'm all for commodifying an externality but we're actually commodifying a common good (a habitable space) and yes, companies should pay citizens if they want to exploit it.

X : Won't the price go down as polluters become more efficient giving disincentive to citizens (i.e. less money received).
Me : Which is why you keep reducing the country level agreements raising the price per tonne.