a) Well that's why they'd get paid for it. The lower your emissions the higher your potential trading bonus. b) I don't see this occurring; rather I suspect that the reverse would be the case. "Oh dear US, gone over your target again? Here, let us clear up this "debt" you've appeared to have accumulated". c) Fraud would be less probable imo than most transactions.
Quite a lot of people thought through these issues for quite some time. I remember them being debated hotly (ahh, unintentional pun) in environmental economics classes in the mid-late 80s.
no subject
a) Well that's why they'd get paid for it. The lower your emissions the higher your potential trading bonus.
b) I don't see this occurring; rather I suspect that the reverse would be the case. "Oh dear US, gone over your target again? Here, let us clear up this "debt" you've appeared to have accumulated".
c) Fraud would be less probable imo than most transactions.
Quite a lot of people thought through these issues for quite some time. I remember them being debated hotly (ahh, unintentional pun) in environmental economics classes in the mid-late 80s.