That's right Arjay, as any impost on business has to be passed on, usually plus some.

However, I still believe that if you wish to cut emissions, the cheapest and most effective way of doing this, while depriving the profit makers of their slice of the pie, would be to charge a direct tax to the consumer, because, the first reaction of that consume, in the majority of cases, would be to cut down, or at least monitor their usage with a view towards cutting down.

The result would be the same, less generation, meaning less emissions but, the tax would go no further and no greedy trader could get their hands on the money/certificates.

While it may seem like a cruel hit to the consumer, it would be effective in a lot of cases.

For instance, if we paid say a 10 cents per litre tax on fuel, consumers would be more likely to better plan the use of their vehicles and not take them out on weekends if at all possible.

Or, if there was a tax on electricity, then most users would be more careful about how many lights they have on at any one time. I can remember one time when my kids were little, where I turned off a total of 19 lights one night. I'd hate to think what my bill would be today!
Perhaps governments could even reward consumers with a rebated portion of their tax if they reach a Pre determined goal.

Posted by rehctub, Saturday, 2 August 2014 2:02:38 PM

Just look at what happened to water prices, firstly we were encouraged to conserve water, so water usage fell.

The water authority/regulator, lost revenue, so the price of water went up. In the end the consumer was paying more money for water, but using less.

This also applies to the use of energy, as consumer usage falls, the price per unit increases in order to keep profitability for companies and shareholders.