Why not just implement a carbon tax?

A carbon tax would not place a reliable limit on emissions. Even if fossil fuels became, say, five times more expensive because of a carbon tax, there would be nothing to prevent those who can afford to pay to simply continue using fossil fuels with profligacy. There would therefore be no way to ensure that emission levels are eventually cut down to zero, which is what we need.

By contrast, our proposal would ensure that overall emissions are reduced regardless of whether some rich individuals continue to want to use helicopters to deliver their caviar. (The rest of us, meanwhile, can be getting on with the transition to renewable energy).

Isn’t it a problem that the rich would be able to pay for more fossil fuel use than the poor?

Under our system there would actually be a massive transfer of resources from the rich to the poor. The majority of people will be better off financially than at present. The rich would still able to pay for more fossil fuels, but this would become a moot point in any case as the economy converts to zero-carbon.

How can the Global Climate Trust guarantee that dangerous climate change will be avoided?

The cap on the level of carbon allowed to enter the economy will be set on a year-by-year basis so if for example CCS techniques or Biochar reduce the amount of CO2 from the atmosphere the cap may be loosened. On the other hand if deforestation or increased melting of the permafrost increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere a tighter cap will be set, resulting in less permits.  Because the cap is not set or influenced by politics or lobbyists but by climate scientists the decisions will be made based on the latest understanding of the planetary system.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather