Comments on: Ontario’s coming carbonomics controversy

By: Shelby | Heating Elements

Shelby | Heating Elements — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:14:55 +0000

Some great points there I think we are all concerned about the damages that carbon has on our planet, so any new thing that will benefit the use of it, but like introducing a tax then by all means they must do so.

By: Ian Howard

Ian Howard — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:55:24 +0000

Tyler,

I concur, the OPA should retire the environmental attributes verse the carbon being produced by coal generation. If they were to sell those attributes to the market, and not themselves buy offsets they would provide a disservice in that they would add to supply. This would lead to lower prices for attributes and would thus make it more difficult for those trying to raise funds through forward contracts on environmental derivatives (offsets) for projects. Your post does raise a good point about what their intent is, but I suspect that their purpose was to simplify this aspect of project development and to make sure that the FIT was not overly generous.

Ian

By: Bob Bourke

Bob Bourke — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:54:18 +0000

Good article Taylor. I agree with your points and concerns of bureaucratic layering and vulnerability for abuse.

By: Peter Clarke

Peter Clarke — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:23:50 +0000

Tyler, renewables and energy efficiency CANNOT generate emission reduction credits under a cap-and-trade system due to the issue of double counting. Unless there is a set-aside mechanism (as with the Ontario NOx and SO2 emissions trading program) all avoided or displaced fossil generation is counted by the generator (generate less, produce less ghg’s) towards their cap. For a renewables entity to also claim those reductions results in that double counting problem. The feds recently released the project types to be eligible for offsets, and included wind, but they have not addressed the regulatory mechanism that might allow that. Bottom line is that under cap-and-trade, many potential offset projects cease to exist. Under Waxman-Markey, 85% of emissions are covered…leaving very little room for domestic offsets, and placing huge hope in the ability of the Clean Development Mechanism and REDD to fill the void.

By: provenced-up

provenced-up — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:53:13 +0000

thanks for the link Tyler. Yeah i’m with you in a basic preference towards a carbon tax. Instead of creating a new-market for carbon credit acquisition and sell-offs I would rather see a new tax. But the inability of the liberals to sell it last election kind of put the kibosh on a carbon tax for a while.