Incentives, incentives

The world must accept that every single individual on the globe is entitled to emit the same quantity of greenhouse gases and other pollutants with a global reach. The total amount of each type of pollutant that the world can cope with must be decided on by researchers operating professionally and at arm\’s length from politicians. This amount should be divided by the world\’s population, and national quotas allocated accordingly.

An awareness of exactly how much pollution – and greenhouse gases in particular – the world can stomach would give developing countries a bargaining chip. If they agree to reduce their population growth, and we accept a formula of pollution quotas based on population size, we can all make progress. Current population figures should be the basis for quotas; any future population growth beyond accepted and agreed levels should lead to a cut in the allocation of pollutants.

Hmm, now, imagine you are a ruthless dictator desirous of making the most possible money out of your control of your country and its people.

It\’s not entirely beyond the bounds of believability that such exist now, is it?

So what\’s your best option under this scheme? Slaughter the population and sell their carbon quotas of course.

An interesting set of incentives to organise, don\’t you think?



4 thoughts on “Incentives, incentives”

  1. These people really scare me. I am beginning to understand so much better how we got from workers rights to the gulag.

    Its all for a good cause so we can do anything we want.

  2. The inventors of this scheme assume that the population of each country is identifiable. If a dictator slaughters his people, then wouldn’t that countries quota go down?

    You could achieve the same effect by wildly overstating your population on Day One, much less messy.

  3. Why kill anyone? Just sell the credits- no-one’s going to stop the poor lighting fires or candles anyway- in fact I’ll bet those emissions aren’t measured.
    Still, if the scientists doing the research really were removed from politics- that’d mean no-one ever in reciept of a government grant to take part, and no future government grants for those taking part- then the results might not be as the proposers expect. My money is on the greens wanting a say.

  4. One wouldn’t have to slaughter anyone, which as Mark points out would have short term benefits at best and would prbably upset the international ration controllers. As soon as the natural order imposes itself and people start to trade their carbon ration all our dictator would have to do would be to nationalise the things.

    Explaining it away in terms like “gathering economic resources for the common good” and “ensuring equality” he’d have the international rationers eating out of his hand. Hell! They’d probably double his country’s allocation as a reward for “progressive thinking”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *