The Cost of Cold

Today a respected UK charity released estimates of the death toll and the cost to the NHS of cold homes nationwide. These figures are included in The Cost of Cold (pdf).

It is a shocking state of affairs. The NHS is spending roughly £1.4bn per year treating conditions brought on my cold living conditions. Even after this expenditure  roughly twenty seven thousand people a year die from conditions brought on by the combination of shoddy housing stock and high energy prices.

While energy prices always hit the headlines, insulation and draftproofing are the less glamorous solutions that need more funding. For this reason Age UK has launched Spread the Warmth.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Kevin Smith on Climate Camp and carbon trading.

The police are maintaining there war of words against the Climate Camp. A recent police stopry was covored widely in the press--across ideological lines--from the Guardian to the Daily Mail. This story told of a fiorthcoming 'summer of rage' and went on to conflate general economic tensions relating to the financial crisis with the motives of climate change activists who dont believe in carbon trading. It is an interesting conflation, and one that we wish the public where generally more willing to make; if the neoliberal economic model has hit crisis point then do we really want to apply that same model of trading--this time in carbon certificates--to the problem of climate change? Wouldnt we be better with an approach that we know will work such as simply replacing fossil fuel plants with renewable generation, or increasing the energy eficiency of transport?

On cap and trade Kevin says:

This is a policy option that has been aggressively promoted not because of its
track record in reducing pollution (because it hasn't got one) but because of
its compatibility with the market-obsessed economic agenda of recent decades.
The concept of the omnipotence of markets has had an enormous crisis of
legitimacy in the wake of the financial crisis but the UK government is still
making futile attempts to apply the same failed market logic to the problem of
climate change.

But while the climate camp strives to think the unthinkable; environmental protection not based on markets...the police are trying to persuade the public to accept the unacceptable. Protest is not just protest it is highly disruptive 'social unrest' which requires far more strident policing.

The climate camp's plans to target the carbon markets on 1 April is one of the
protests that were described in the Guardian by Superintendent David Hartshorn
as kick-starting a "summer of rage". Using the threat of social unrest provoked
by the recession could be interpreted as an attempt to justify increasingly
draconian policing of protest. However there's a great deal of evidence to
suggest that this policing trend had started long before the recession began.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

James & Anniek Hansen open letter to Michelle and Barack Obama

29 December 2008

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born. Barack has spoken of 'a planet in peril' and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.

We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these 'details' could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times.

Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth.

Yet the information that most needs to be communicated to you concerns the failure of policy approaches employed by nations most sincere and concerned about stabilizing climate.

Policies being discussed in national and international circles now, which focus on 'goals' for emission reduction and 'cap and trade', have the same basic approach as the Kyoto Protocol.

This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity.

The enclosure, "Tell Barack Obama the Truth – the Whole Truth" was sent to colleagues for comments as we left for a trip to Europe. Their main suggestion was to add a summary of the specific recommendations, preferably in a cover letter sent to both of you.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential requesti. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required. Our three recommendations derive from the science, including logical inferences based on empirical information about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of specific past policy approaches.

(1) Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2. This is the sine qua non for solving the climate problem. Coal emissions must be phased out rapidly. Yes, it is a great challenge, but one with enormous side benefits. Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined, and its reserves make coal even more important for the long run. Oil, the second greatest contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide, is already substantially depleted, and it is impractical to capture carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles.

But if coal emissions are phased out promptly, a range of actions including improved agricultural and forestry practices could bring the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide back down, out of the dangerous range.

As an example of coal's impact consider this: continued construction of coal-fired power plants will raise atmospheric carbon dioxide to a level at least approaching 500 ppm (parts per million). At that level, a conservative estimate for the number of species that would be exterminated (committed to extinction) is one million. The proportionate contribution of a single power plant operating 50 years and burning ~100 rail cars of coal per day (100 tons of coal per rail car) would be about 400 species! Coal plants are factories of death. It is no wonder that young people (and some not so young) are beginning to block new construction.

(2) Rising price on carbon emissions via a "carbon tax and 100% dividend". A rising price on carbon emissions is the essential underlying support needed to make all other climate policies work. For example, improved building codes are essential, but full enforcement at all construction and operations is impractical. A rising carbon price is the one practical way to obtain compliance with codes designed to increase energy efficiency.

A rising carbon price is essential to "decarbonize" the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public's near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.

The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend. Not one cent goes to Washington. No lobbyists will be supported. Unlike cap-and-trade, no millionaires would be made at the expense of the public.

The tax will spur innovation as entrepreneurs compete to develop and market low-carbon and no-carbon energies and products. The dividend puts money in the pockets of consumers, stimulating the economy, and providing the public a means to purchase the products.
A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective. It will increase energy prices, but low and middle income people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to come out ahead. The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated by how fast the carbon tax rate increases. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive and vice versa, encouraging support of nearby farms as opposed to imports from half way around the world.

The carbon tax has social benefits. It is progressive. It is useful to those most in need in hard times, providing them an opportunity for larger dividend than tax. It will encourage illegal immigrants to become legal, thus to obtain the dividend, and it will discourage illegal immigration because everybody pays the tax, but only legal citizens collect the dividend.

"Cap and trade" generates special interests, lobbyists, and trading schemes, yielding non productive millionaires, all at public expense. The public is fed up with such business. Tax with 100% dividend, in contrast, would spur our economy, while aiding the disadvantaged, the climate, and our national security.

(3) Urgent R&D on 4th generation nuclear power with international cooperation.
Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a "smart grid" deserve first priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions. With a rising carbon price, renewable energy can perhaps handle all of our needs. However, most experts believe that making such presumption probably would leave us in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide. Such a result would be disastrous for the planet, humanity, and nature.

4th generation nuclear power (4th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4th GNP (and CCS) is: "it cannot be ready before 2030." However, the time needed could be much abbreviated with a Presidential initiative and Congressional support. Moreover, improved (3rd generation) light water reactors are available for near-term needs.

In our opinion, 4th GNP deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive materialiii. Potential proliferation of nuclear material will always demand vigilance, but that will be true in any case, and our safety is best secured if the United States is involved in the technologies and helps define standards.

Existing nuclear reactors use less than 1% of the energy in uranium, leaving more than 99% in long-lived nuclear waste. 4th GNP can "burn" that waste, leaving a small volume of waste with a half-life of decades rather than thousands of years. Thus 4th GNP could help solve the nuclear waste problem, which must be dealt with in any case. Because of this, a portion of the $25B that has been collected from utilities to deal with nuclear waste justifiably could be used to develop 4th generation reactors.

The principal issue with nuclear power, and other energy sources, is cost. Thus an R&D objective must be a modularized reactor design that is cost competitive with coal. Without such capability, it may be difficult to wean China and India from coal. But all developing countries have great incentives for clean energy and stable climate, and they will welcome technical cooperation aimed at rapid development of a reproducible safe nuclear reactor.

Potential for cooperation with developing countries is implied by interest South Korea has expressed in General Electric's design for a small scale 4th GNP reactor. I do not have the expertise to advocate any specific project, and there are alternative approaches for 4th GNP. I am only suggesting that the assertion that 4th GNP technology cannot be ready until 2030 is not necessarily valid. Indeed, with a Presidential directive for the Nuclear Regulator Commission to give priority to the review process, it is possible that a prototype reactor could be constructed rapidly in the United States.

CCS also deserves R&D support. There is no such thing as clean coal at this time, and it is doubtful that we will ever be able to fully eliminate emissions of mercury, other heavy metals, and radioactive material in the mining and burning of coal. However, because of the enormous number of dirty coal-fired power plants in existence, the abundance of the fuel, and the fact that CCS technology could be used at biofuel-fired power plants to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide, the technology deserves strong R&D support.

Summary
An urgent geophysical fact has become clear. Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed.
Of course it is unfair that everyone is looking to Barack to solve this problem (and other problems!), but they are. He alone has a fleeting opportunity to instigate fundamental change, and the ability to explain the need for it to the public.

Geophysical limits dictate the outline for what must be donev. Because of the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air, slowing the emissions cannot solve the problem. Instead a large part of the total fossil fuels must be left in the ground. In practice, that means coal.

The physics of the matter, together with empirical data, also define the need for a carbon tax.
Alternatives such as emission reduction targets, cap and trade, cap and dividend, do not work, as proven by honest efforts of the 'greenest' countries to comply with the Kyoto Protocol:

1. Japan: accepted the strongest emission reduction targets, appropriately prides itself on having the most energy-efficient industry, and yet its use of coal has sharply increased, as have its total CO2 emissions. Japan offset its increases with purchases of credits through the clean development mechanism in China, intended to reduce emissions there, but Chinese emissions increased rapidly.
2. Germany: subsidizes renewable energies heavily and accepts strong emission reduction targets, yet plans to build a large number of coal-fired power plants. They assert that they will have cap-and-trade, with a cap that reduces emissions by whatever amount is needed. But the physics tells us that if they continue to burn coal, no cap can solve the problem, because of the long carbon dioxide lifetime.
3. Other cases are described on my Columbia University web site, e.g., Switzerland finances construction of coal plants, Sweden builds them, and Australia exports coal and sets atmospheric carbon dioxide goals so large as to guarantee destruction of much of the life on the planet.

Indeed, 'goals' and 'caps' on carbon emissions are practically worthless, if coal emissions continue, because of the exceedingly long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air. Nobody realistically expects that the large readily available pools of oil and gas will be left in the, ground. Caps will not cause that to happen – caps only slow the rate at which the oil and gas are used. The only solution is to cut off the coal source (and unconventional fossil fuels).

Coal phase-out and transition to the post-fossil fuel era requires an increasing carbon price. A carbon tax at the wellhead or port of entry reduces all uses of a fuel. In contrast, a less comprehensive cap has the perverse effect of lowering the price of the fuel for other uses, undercutting clean energy sources In contrast to the impracticality of all nations agreeing to caps, and the impossibility of enforcement, a carbon tax can readily be made near-global.

• Given the brilliant scientists Barack has appointed to his team, is there need for a National Academy of Sciences meeting? Yes, his team surely would welcome not only clarification of the urgency of the climate situation, but also interdisciplinary (economics, engineering, physics, biology…) discussion and evaluation of policy options. Barack's first year or two in office is almost surely our last best chance to get the climate and energy strategy right in time to save the future of our children and grandchildren.
• I am not referring to the DOE's "Generation-4" nuclear program, which is a diffuse program that will not yield rapid payoff. Instead, as discussed below, there would need to be a Presidential directive to pursue a path(s) with the potential to contribute to decarbonization of global energy systems as rapidly as practical.
• 4th generation reactors can include automatic shutdown in case of an earthquake or other interruption. It is noteworthy that, even with the presence of poorly designed nuclear power plants in the past, and in some cases demonstrably sloppy operations, the waste from coal-fired power plants has done far more damage, and even spread more radioactive material around the world than all nuclear power plants combined, including Chernobyl.
• Urgency derives from the nearness of climate tipping points, beyond which climate dynamics will cause rapid changes out of humanity's control. Concern about such behavior derives not from theory or speculation, but from improving knowledge of how the Earth responded to past changes of atmospheric composition and from observations of ongoing changes.

Tipping points occur because of amplifying feedbacks. Feedbacks include loss of Arctic sea ice, melting glaciers and ice sheets, release of 'frozen' methane as tundra melts, and growth of vegetation on previously frozen land. The surface changes increase the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth. Added methane reduces heat radiation to space, amplifying the warming effect of carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.

Analysis of Earth's history helps reveal the level of greenhouse gases needed to maintain a climate resembling the Holocene, Creation, the period of reasonably stable climate in which civilization developed.

That carbon dioxide level, unsurprisingly in retrospect, is less than the current 385 ppm (parts per million). The safe amount for the long-term is no more than 350 ppm, probably less. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 ppm. Precise definition of a safe range requires better knowledge of all climate forcing mechanisms. What is clear is that continuing fossil fuel emissions will put Earth on an inexorable course toward an icefree state, a course punctuated by increasingly extreme disasters with hundreds of millions of climate refugees.
A large fraction of species on Earth face certain extinction, if we burn most fossil fuels without capturing and storing the carbon dioxide. New species may come into being over many thousands of years, but all generations of our descendants that we can imagine will live on a far more desolate planet than the one we knew.

• Total carbon in conventional fossil fuels (oil, gas, and coal), if released to the air, is enough to initiate a dynamic transition to an ice-free climate state, a transition that would be out of humanity's control. A large fraction of the carbon dioxide emitted in burning fossil fuels stays in the air many centuries. Thus the climate problem cannot be solved by only slowing the rate at which we burn the fossil fuels.

Solution requires that a large part of total fossil fuels is left in the ground, or the carbon dioxide captured and stored. In addition, the unconventional fossil fuels (oil shale, tar sands, methane hydrates) must be left largely untouched or the carbon dioxide captured and stored.

• Now, with oil prices down, is when a hefty carbon tax should be added. In the future, when the price of gasoline again reaches and passes $4/gallon, most of this cost will be tax, staying in the country, spread among consumers, and driving our economy to a clean future. The public can understand this, if Barack explains it, and they will accept it, if there is 100% dividend.
• A carbon tax requires agreement of only several major nations. If any given nation does not apply the tax, an equivalent duty can be applied to their products at ports of entry.
• A Presidential directive for prompt investigation and proto-typing of advanced safe nuclear power is needed to cover the possibility that renewable energies cannot satisfy global energy needs. One of the greatest dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of anti-nuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions.
• The challenges today, including climate change, are great and urgent. Barack's leadership is essential to explain to the world what is needed. The public, young and old, recognize the difficulties and will support the actions needed for a fundamental change of direction.

James and Anniek Hansen

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

UK Opposes inclusion of Aviation in EU ETS

Don't worry about aviation expansion--it will account for the entire uk carbon budget by 2050 but it's ok we will use the EU emissions trading scheme. Only we won't according to the BBC the govornment aren't even willing to pay off other members of the EU for our polluting ways. In 2008 the UK Labor Govornment has a policy of 'lets not think or--god forbid--talk about aviation. Surely it will go dissapear from the minds of the great british public just like Douglas Adam's idea of an SEP (someone elses probelem).

The spectacular thing is that i've heard Hillary Benn strongly advocating for this measure...what the hell is going on? Ok,we are working in the old paradigme where climate change isn't the greatest threat to civilisation but a quaint little environmental issue about polar bears and fluffy animals and trees...who care, right?

The best bit is the 'expectation' that aviation will gain 20% of its fuel from renewable energy sources...you know, like corn ethanol, you know, the very thing that started the global food crisis, we need to give that policy wings!

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Ontario and Qubec start cap and trade scheme.

Treehugger today picked up a story about Ontario and Qubec who are jointly moving ahead with a ghg emission cap and trade scheme. The significance of this is twofold, influence and direct impact. In terms of influence we are all hoping that the Canadian govornment will get its act together and put a federal system together; also Canada is one of the few countries that feature highly in the American conciousness so hopefully this will add futher to the pressure on US congressmen to implement a system soon. Lets just hope that in both cases we get progress soon, and we get progress worthy of the title.

In terms of direct impact Ontario and Qubec are only two of 13 provences but they have 60% of the population so it's more than a purely symbolic scheme. However when Alberta is convered by such a scheme the rest of the world will rest a little easier; there is a lot of very dirty carbon intensive oil shale in Alberta and it needs to stay in the ground.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

New Report by Nicholas Stern (of Stern Review fame)

Nicholas Stern has just published a new report at LSE entitled "key elements of a global deal on climate change".

Thanks to Treehugger for spreading the word about this, find the press conference here.

• Download the report.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

[UPDATE] Interview on Canadian Carbon Tax

Thanks to Alex from Radio Ecoshock for the link he left as a comment to my post on an innovative carbon tax that British Columbia is introducing.

Interview on the carbon tax and scientific sensorship.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Cap and Trade systems explained in detail: Collaboration by WRI, Pew

The EU has had an emissions trading scheme for some time, the first revision was absurdly overallocated so the price of credits fell through the floor. We will have and wait to see how this develops, one of the major changes going forward is the movement towards a auction based system. The system is also becoming broader. With the US likely to adopt a similar system soon it's important to take a look at what works and what dosent. The New America Foundation, the Pew Centre for Global Climate Change and the World Resources Institute have produced a series of 10 (6 currently available) detailed videos looking at every aspect of effective emissions regulation.



Video:

Webinar 1: Introduction to Cap-and-Trade Programs

Moderator: Sonia Hamel, New America Foundation
Speakers: Judi Greenwald (Pew Center), Franz Litz (World Resources Institute)

Webinar 2: Program Scope and Point of Regulation

Moderator: Franz Litz (World Resources Institute)
Speaker: Judi Greenwald (Pew Center)

Webinar 3: Electricity Sector Options

Moderator: Franz Litz (World Resources Institute)
Speakers: Richard Cowart (Regulatory Assistance Project),
Dallas Burtraw (Resources for the Future)

Webinar 4: Cap-and-Trade Design Issues in Depth, Part I: Lessons from the US/Canadian Acid Rain SO2 and NOx Trading Programs

Moderator: Judi Greenwald (Pew Center)
Speakers: Brian McLean (U.S. EPA),
Denny Ellerman (MIT),
John Hutchison (Ontario)

Webinar 5: Cap-and-Trade Design Issues In-Depth, Part II: Lessons from the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme and the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

Moderator: Franz Litz (World Resources Institute)
Speakers: Peter Zapfel (The European Commission), Chris Sherry (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection & RGGI*)

Webinar 6: Design Elements in current Federal Cap-and-Trade Proposals

Moderator: Judi Greenwald (Pew Center)
Speakers: David McIntosh (Senator Lieberman’s Office), Lorie Schmidt, Counsel, Energy and Commerce Committee, US House of Representatives

>Still to come

Webinar 7: Distributing Allowances

Moderator: Franz Litz (World Resources Institute)
Speakers: Christopher Nelson (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection*), Jill Duggan (United Kingdom, DEFRA), Kelley Kizzier (Ireland, EPA)


Webinar 8: Offsets

Moderator: Judi Greenwald (Pew Center)
Speakers: Mike Burnett (The Climate Trust), Chris Sherry (New Jersey DEP)


Webinar 9: Linking Cap-and-Trade Programs

Moderator: Sonia Hamel (New America Foundation)
Speakers: Jonathan Pershing (World Resources Institute), Damien Meadows (European Commission*)


Webinar 10: Emissions Trading Market Fundamentals

Moderator: Franz Litz (World Resources Institute)
Speakers: Olivia Hartridge (Morgan Stanley*), Gia Schneider (Credit Suisse*)

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax (a.k.a Green Tax Switch)

An interesting policy innovation is taking place in British Columbia (Canada). A carbon tax has been introduced; the level of the tax is modest although increasing to 2012. The interesting part is how the tax works. A charge based on emmissions will be charge on the sale of all fossil fuels. The revenues raised will then be given back to the people in a manner that is both progressive and revenue neutral overall.

The tax incentives aimed at keeping the carbon tax “revenue neutral” will be dispersed as follows: the bottom two personal income tax rates will be cut by 2 per cent in 2008 and 5 per cent in 2009 on the first $70,000 in earnings; effective July 1, the corporate tax rate will drop to 11 per cent from 12 per cent; effective July 1, the small-business tax rate will be cut from 4.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent.

This is one of many kinds of green tax switch that bennefit both the poor and the environment.

Related:
UK Liberal Democratic Party: Green Tax Switch
Globe and Mail Article
Carbon Tax Background and Issues
Reuters

Home del.icio.us Digg This!

China steps it up on environmental protection.

In this statement, highlighted by the Worldwatch Institute (and translated by Google)  it looks like that the Chinese State Environmental Protection Agency sees the challenge ahead.

===


Pan Yue, deputy director of State Administration of Environmental Protection

"The introduction of economic policy environment can not wait! We should release several policies within one year, set up major pilot projects within two years, and create a fundamental framework for an environmental economic system in China within four years.."

The State Environmental Protection Administration Pan Yue, deputy director in the 9th Twelfth "Green China Forum" that outlined China's economic policy environment timetable. Forum on Pan proposed for the first time a new environment of economic policy framework and the road map, and called on the macroeconomic sector and professional sectors together environmental and economic policy research pilot.

Pan said that the economic policy environment system is the most effective solutions to environmental problems, the best way of a long-term mechanism is an important component of macroeconomic measures part is implementing the scientific concept of development and system support.

Economic policy environment is in accordance with the laws of market economy, adopt a price, taxation, financial, credit, fees, insurance and other economic means to influence the market behavior of the main policy instruments.

Pan's economic policy environment will be divided into seven areas:

• First, the green tax. To the development, conservation, the use of environmental resources of taxpayers units and individuals, according to the environmental resource development and use, pollution, destruction and the extent of protection levy or relief, the implementation of environment-friendly behavior tax preferential policies on the environment unfriendly act , and establish a basis for the amount of pollution emitted by the direct pollution taxes, indirect pollution based on the products of environmental taxes.
  
• 
  
• Second, environmental charges. Raising the level of charges, in the resource price reform to take full account of environmental factors, pricing and fees to promote energy-saving reduction.
  
• 
  
• Third, it is green capital markets. In the indirect financing channels, the implementation of "green loan" of the environment-friendly enterprises or institutions providing loans to support and implement preferential interest rates on the new projects of the enterprises in investment and liquidity lending limits and the implementation of punitive high interest rates in the direct financing channels on a set of "two high" enterprises, including the initial capital market access restrictions, limitations and the follow-up funds from the stock market and other punitive content of audit monitoring system. (a good idea which i haven't heard much about here in the UK or in the US)
  
• 
  
• Fourth, it is ecological compensation. This policy is not just an environmental and economic needs, but also political and strategic needs. It is necessary to improve the developed areas of less developed regions, urban to rural, affluent crowd on the poor, on the lower reaches of the upper reaches, beneficiaries of the injured party, the "two high" industries of environmental protection industries to the financial transfer payment methods ecological compensation policy . (translation not good enough for me...perhaps reperation in rural areas for resources required in cities? An attempt at stabilising social tensions using the logic  of environmental rights?)
  
• 
  
• Fifth, it is trading. The use of market forces to achieve environmental protection objectives and optimize the environmental capacity of the allocation of resources, reduce the total cost of pollution control, and mobilize the enthusiasm of polluters to prevent water pollution. (water qaility credits in a market system, i believe the US currently uses this kind
• of mechanism for water qaulity)
  
• 
  
• Sixth, green trade. For the developed countries more and more green trade barriers, China must change the simple pursuit of volume growth to the neglect of environmental capacity and resource constraints of the development model, the import and export trade and balance the interests of environmental protection at home and abroad.
  
• 
  
• Seventh, Green insurance. Environmental liability insurance which most representative, on the one hand, by insurance companies and unforeseen pollution compensation to the victims of the government and enterprises to reduce the pressure on the one hand and enhance the market mechanism to force the supervision of enterprises sewage. (I believe that this is a requirement for environmental insurance, insurance on a large scale is often only obtanable on the conditions of an insurance company such as monitoring and independent assesment of pollution risks, this gives central govornment a way to introduce monitoring of business on business)
• 
  

Pan said that any one sector and macroeconomic environment with the professional competence to lead the departments are willing to implement economic policy environment, Environmental Protection Agency will meet to be willing to do supporting roles.

Home del.icio.us Digg This!