juliet

yes, on the grounds that carbon trading is basically a way of allowing rich countries to carry on overconsuming at the expense of poorer countries.

Yes, I rather thought that was the position, it's the impression I got from what I read about the G20 protests. The big problem with that position, is that it's actually an anti Clean Development Mechanism position. The majority of carbon trading is carbon trading *within* Europe. [Eg if we look at the European Climate Exchange - where Climate Camp was protesting - 85% of the current "market snapshot" represents trades within Europe.] This means emissions cuts in sectors covered by the EU emissions trading scheme occur efficiently, at least cost - which is why carbon trading is gorgeous and wonderful and lovely and marvellous.

Why should environmentalists be concerned about cuts taking place at least cost to industry? Because we'll only mitigate to the extent that 'we' (public, politicians, industry lobyists) feel the economy can take the pain. Climate camp etc are all about increasing this pain threshold - which is gorgeous and wonderful and lovely too - but don't underestimate the importance of making the same cuts at lower economic cost, or, if you prefer, deeper cuts at the same economic cost.

[Wouldn't it be great if I could offer some figures or ratios on this? I know the idealised version of the formula but not actually the numbers one would put in. I should.]

CDM on the other hand: there is a lot institutionally wrong with it. But looking more broadly at the idea of emissions trading with the developing world (assuming a sensible system, for example where they are nationally allocated permits beyond their current emissions and can sell the excess, rather than trading against the counterfactual, as the CDM does): your point is entirely valid (and incorporated in most sensible suggestions of future emissions paths). But there is also the point that we don't want to / have no right to stop developing countries from developing, but we DO want them to develop in cleaner greener ways - and this is generally something they want too. But this is more expensive than following the conventional trajectory, and so pragmatism / justice dictates that we should pay a fair amount of the difference. Emissions trading provides a framework for massive flows of cash from private enterprise in the rich world into the poor world, to pay for good stuff. This is why I support it.

Sorry; I seem to have gone off on one. Basically climate camp is surely great and I would love to actually be able to go one of these days - but protesting outside the European Climate Exchange was imho bonkers, and I seem to have been itching for a row about it.