Hiilivuoto ja kansallliset harhaluulot

Huomasin ilokseni että suosikkiekonomistinti Jeff Frankel blogaa.

Esimerkiksi kirjoitus hiilivuodosta ja siitä miten sitä voidaan hoitaa on hyvä:

In theory, there is a possible legitimate role for border adjustments in facilitating a multilateral regime such as the Kyoto Protocol. One might think of penalties on carbon-intensive imports:
1. as sanctions to apply pressure on non-participants,
2. as a calibrated “countervailing duty” to equalize a distortion that will otherwise see carbon-intensive activities migrate to less-regulated countries (a phenomenon known as leakage) or
3. as political reassurance to domestic firms worried about their international
competitiveness.
If designed properly, they need not necessarily be inconsistent with the WTO (World Trade Organization). There are precedents, most importantly (and most ironically) the famous/infamous shrimp/turtle case.

But U.S. politicians are unlikely to do it properly. They may be unaware that the US is more likely to end up as the target of such tariffs than as the enactor – to end up as the defendant, rather than as the prosecutor. The European Union is way ahead of us in cutting back GHG emissions under the Kyoto protocol, and its EC Directive earlier this year had similar language calling for penalties aimed at shirking competitors. That’s us.

Jotenkin näin kotimaisesti lapsenusko että meidän teollisuus on energiatehokkainta ja ne muut tuottavat päästöjä tuntuu tutulta.

Laajasalon ratikka

Linkkejä aiheesta muistiin:

Vaihtoehtojen vertailu (KSV)

Antero Alun sivu aiheesta

Vanhempi vertailu jossa lauttaliikenne oli vielä mukana ja todettiin huonoksi

Keskustelua Joukkoliikennefoorumilla

Luettua 27.8.

Päivän paras otsikko ja luomuehkäisyä, Asunnottomille oikeus sisätilaseksiin!

Hyvä artikkeli Hans Mondermanista, The Traffic Guru. Alla oleva kommentti ihmisten suhtautumisesta risteykseen joka muutettiin aukioksi on mainio ja sopisi moneen muuhunkin asiaan:

At the town center, in a crowded ­four-­way intersection called the Lawei­plein, Monderman removed not only the traffic lights but virtually every other traffic control. Instead of a space cluttered with poles, lights, “traffic islands,” and restrictive arrows, Monderman installed a radical kind of roundabout (a “squareabout,” in his words, because it really seemed more a town square than a traditional roundabout), marked only by a raised circle of grass in the middle, several fountains, and some very discreet indicators of the direction of traffic, which were required by ­law...

Students from a local engineering college who studied the intersection reported that both drivers and, unusually, cyclists were using ­signals—­of the electronic or hand ­variety—­more often. They also found, in surveys, that residents, despite the measurable increase in safety, perceived the place to be more dangerous. This was music to Monderman’s ears. If they had not felt less secure, he said, he “would have changed it immediately.”