From: spudnik on
it isn't a tax; it's "free-er trade," and that is shown
by what the PRC is apparently doing. this was also mooted
by the head of the California EPA, who gave a catered "briefing"
at the local library to invited guests -- I just happened to see it,
noticed in the library lobby -- when he said that
the PRC was really going gangbusters on greenstuff, but
was merely wating for the USA to legislate, to admit it,
which obviously they have been doing of late.

now, whether or not there is a more-considered element
of taxation in the Chinese model, I don't know. I do know,
Ssanta Monica heavily promotes the cargo-cult of PVs and
CFLs and every thing from Southwest Asia!

the voluntary market in the USA is tens of billions of dolllars
per annum in hedging, apparently began by the Presdient
in 2003 as CCX, when the Senator was pooling foundation bucks
to get it started. there is also an ICE, which I think was began
in 2005 (from a little article in the WSUrinal); Waxman's biill,
I think that is now before the Senate, mandatorizes the scheme.

I would prefer to call it, the next-and-maybe-last bailout
of Wall St. and "the City," because this is an international market,
and both CCE and ICE are legally bound in British law, not US.

thus quoth:
China can learn from America's voluntary trading mechanism
and the European quota trading mechanism. China's relative carbon
emission goal can be transferred into the absolute emission-reduction
target. Carbon emission trading can start with the energy-intensive
industries like power, steel, construction materials and chemical
industries.

> "In a market-based mechanism, an emissions trading scheme provides
> economic incentives for reducing pollution," said Zhang. "Companies
> unable to limit their emissions have to pay a much higher price for
> extra credits on the exchange."

--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net