MEPs voted down a proposal to delay an auction of so-called "polluter permits", which the European Commission said was necessary to increase their cost and encourage industry to reduce emissions.
The Environmental News Network has criticized its "plentiful polluter permits, weak renewable electricity goals, and low carbon emission reduction targets".
Now, as the pollution battle shifts from sulfur to carbon, the enviros declare that it isn't right to give only polluters permits to emit naughty gases.
The main idea behind carbon trading was to give companies the incentive to reduce emissions by requiring the heaviest polluters to buy additional pollution permits.
Forcing polluters to pay up-front for their pollution permits should give companies a much-needed financial incentive to cut their emissions and help restore confidence in a discredited system.
Certainly, heavy polluters are better off because they do not have to buy pollution permits or invest in new technology.
But trading in credits based on carbon-offset projects — in which polluters buy permits issued to finance investments in initiatives like forestry programs or clean-energy production — slumped 54 percent, to $3.4 billion.
As Mark Knopfler would say, "That ain't workin.'" All you need to do is charge polluters for permits, and return the revenues back to households.
He filed or joined 13 lawsuits against EPA and settled even more against polluters that would permit power plants to spew more sulfur dioxide, mercury, arsenic, cyanide and other poisonous toxins into the air; allow more smog to blanket our rural communities, cities and national parks; and allow more pollution in our rivers and lakes and the water we drink.
While this achievement depends on low growth rates, it is possible to claim that in the situation with high costs for emission permits the polluter (vessel owners, operators, etc).
The bill would cap the production of heat-trapping gases and force polluters to buy permits to emit carbon dioxide.
