{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022367194780987885, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007455731593662628, 'mean_word_length': 5.067796610169491, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cap-and-Trade Systems Versus Carbon Taxes: A Reflection in View of Copenhagen 2009

Cap-and-trade systems are dominating worldwide the policy-makers' choices about the design of climate policies. This is an issue for several of economists, who are arguing that the structure of the costs and damages of climate change gives a strong presumption to price-type approaches. Those who advocate optimality at any cost are looking at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen as an opportunity to move towards a price-oriented global climate policy. However, according to the new mainstream uncertainty analysis, a quantitative standard is preferable to avoid "dangerous" climate change. Moreover a price-type approach may be detrimental to a large-scale development of renewable energy. If decisions makers wish to follow the Precautionary Principle and want to guide society to a more sustainable world, then they should stick to the existing quantity-oriented policy framework and work hard to find a compromise in order to expand the global cooperation.