Magnus Nilsson, writing in the DN Debate to be able to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by 70 per cent between 2010 and 2030, by gradually reducing the amount of fossil fuel that can be sold. He has earned the right to do so, however, there is another way that is more efficient and easier to gain public support for it.
In place of the choke on the amount that can be sold to reduce the quantity demanded by raising the price. With a rising charge in any climate-harming fuel for vehicles, can be designed so that the demand is decreasing in the rate at which it is required. The fee can also be combined with a omställningsbidrag to all citizens, which is to a high degree would make it easier for the public to make a rapid change in the way of life now.
as part of the organization Klimatsvaret do not share the admiration for the reduktionsplikten by Magnus Nilsson, the expression for the because of all of the fuels, which increases carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change. To replace fossil fuels with bio-fuels is not a solution as long as fossil fuels are phased out in other ways as well. Klimatsvaret believe that this is possible with a fee, and the payment of dividends.
to be written.
1. Put a charge on all of the climate-harming fuels at the gas station.
2. Place the revenues from the fee in a mutual fund outside of central government.
3. To empty the fund in each month, by providing an omställningsbidrag to all of its citizens. To provide greater benefit to those who live in rural areas and in the rural areas and to families with young children.
4. The height of the fee at the rate which is required in order to achieve the goal.
in Comparison with Magnus’s proposal, this system is cost-effective. The tax office has all of the necessary administrative structures is needed.
and it has to be done quickly. To give the public a financial the handle is in the form of a monthly dividend, that is what a lot of people would need to set it to.
Magnus Nilsson is right to say that the availability of biofuels is limited, however, ignores the fact that while bio-fuels, with the exception of certain bio-gas, is also increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That the introduction of a national emissions trading scheme, which limits the availability of fossil fuels, but at the same time preventing a massive switch to biofuels would be a disaster from a climate point of view. The system is charged and the distribution of climate-harming fuels are going to solve this dilemma.
the emissions Trading scheme has, quite rightly, a bad name. Those who reap the greatest benefits from this trade are the ones who are designing the administrative system, and the banks, which is a unified whole. Both of which will give rise to costs that are difficult to see.
it is, however, effective, transparent, and fair. This is why the world’s economists would prefer a rising carbon price, with the payment of the dividend.
<
