Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation
Share conversation: Share via:

Dennis Peterson

Dec 16, 2010


1 |
Share via:
While the three winning proposals work fairly well together, there were a couple incompatibilities to resolve. While Realistic allows developing nations to delay participation, North-South puts the developed and developing nations in regional groups, implementing carbon prices group-wide. I went with the North-South approach, while keeping the modest target of the Realistic proposal. By using fees instead of caps, I think it's possible to keep things equitable without requiring long delays. The Carbon Rights proposal lacks specific targets entirely. This is problematic if carbon absorption is slow to develop. In addition, I realized that the ratio approach could result in increased carbon emissions in the near term (see comment 16 on that proposal). To fix these problems, and to be more compatible with Realistic, I replaced the ratio mechanism with a simple fee-and-dividend system, plus tradeable emission rights awarded to people absorbing carbon, at a 1:1 ratio only. Since a $100 billion adaptation fund was agreed to at Cancun, I considered that to be equivalent to the Autonomous Adaptation Fund of the North-South proposal. (If I'm correct, the Noth-South team is in the happy position of seeing part of their proposal implemented already! If Cancun's agreement falls short, we can modify this proposal to improve it.)