Difference between revisions of "Comenius talk:Solutions - Political aspects/Sweden/Group 2"

From Wiki de Vega
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 14: Line 14:
 
There is a good measure as countries with good economic potential purchase those emission rights and all they are doing is to continue polluting.
 
There is a good measure as countries with good economic potential purchase those emission rights and all they are doing is to continue polluting.
 
So I think that is not a solution to help improve the environment.
 
So I think that is not a solution to help improve the environment.
 +
 +
==Ref proposal 3==
 +
 +
I very much like your idea about the money we save on CO2 emissions from the underdeveloped countries so that they can be developed and not developed.--[[File:Es.gif|15px]]  [[User:Mari Nieves|Mari Nieves]] 09:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:38, 26 March 2010

To stop the water problem we will have to create new, more enforced laws that are stricter against pollution in the open ocean. This is to preserve the still drinkable water we have. One of the few discussable options for these new laws are putting a limit on CO2 emissions for each country depending on their population and from it create an cap and trade system which might reduce the pollution a lot. The cap and trade system could also bring some money to the poor countries which don’t use their whole emission cap and let them sell some of their allowance to the bigger industrial countries. This might eventually cause wealth in some less populated countries around the world getting money from the cap and trade system and give the bigger countries a bigger reason to create more and effective power resources to not get above their cap.


I like the idea but really you believe that the countries will accept? I think not because if you have rejected the ideas of Copenhagen do not think now.I'd love for it could be carried out, but it is very complicated--Alicia 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an idea but not the best that could have, because as you mentioned as it would be very detrimental to the industrial countries would lose a lot of money and would no longer be profitable, which Triarii serious consequences, but otherwise the difference between countries decrease by rich and poor than the poor lose in the exploitation of raw materials, the field ... it would earn as a reward for their low participation in pollution.--Es.gif Carmen 09:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


PROPOSAL 2

--Es.gif María Dolores 09:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC) That lowering CO2 emissions is a good solution. But with this new measure of "Cap and Trade", countries that have low CO2 emissions, they sell their surplus rights of its CO2 emissions and receive benefits. There is a good measure as countries with good economic potential purchase those emission rights and all they are doing is to continue polluting. So I think that is not a solution to help improve the environment.

Ref proposal 3

I very much like your idea about the money we save on CO2 emissions from the underdeveloped countries so that they can be developed and not developed.--Es.gif Mari Nieves 09:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)