Thursday, 4 October 2018

Should the government limit Muslim immigration?

 President Donald Trump’s long-touted campaign to implement a (temporary?) ban and introduce “extreme vetting” has eventually come into effect. In Canada, the federal Conservative leadership candidate Kelly Leitch pushed for vetting immigrant for “Canadian values”[1]. Since she, as a member of the last government, sought to ban the wearing of the hijab and burka, her call has been interpreted as anti-Islam. What should a Christian position be on this issue?

On the one hand, it is argued that the teaching of Islam is fundamentally violent and hateful and Muslims seek to eventually dominate the world by force; the Islamist extremists like ISIS represent the true Islam which all Muslims believe in their hearts.  All Muslim immigrants and refugees should, therefore, be rejected. On the other hand, it is argued that many Muslims are moderate and that Christ’s commands to love your neighbor and to love your enemy should lead us to accept most Muslim immigration—certainly those who are refugees.

Before we examine this issue in more detail, a word on immigration in general:  Not only should we recognize that Canada and the U.S. are nations of immigrants, but also from an economic perspective, continued immigration is essential. Declining birthrates and smaller families means our populations are graying. Statistics Canada recently announced that the number of seniors is greater than the number of youth. Our birth rate, currently at 1.6, has been steadily falling over the last several decades: 1971 was the last year when the average number of children matched the 2.1 replacement level needed for the population to renew itself, without being bolstered by immigration. Without immigration, the burden on the working-age population to support increasing numbers of seniors would grow “bigly”. This graying of populations is increasing also in other countries and is a major reason for Germany, for example, initially welcoming large numbers of refugees. Conclusion, economically speaking, we need immigrants—a fact, not necessarily recognized. A recent poll reports that the majority of Canadians believe that Canada should accept fewer immigrants and refugees.[2]

Moreover, Love of Neighbour demands that we take seriously the refugee problem facing the world. The number of refugees accepted into Canada, 40,000, is a drop in the bucket compared to the major displacement of Syrian refugees. Jordan with a native population of 6.5 million, hosts at least one million Syrians. Lebanon hosts about 1.5 million—about a quarter of the countriy’s population and Turkey is thought to have close to three million Syrians on its soil.[3]

Actions of Muslims that Inspire Fear

It is not difficult to find reasons to fear Muslims. Consider only:

  • ·       Police in France brought a dramatic end to a suspected terrorist attack, storming a supermarket in the southern town of Trèbes, shooting a suspect dead, and freeing several hostages. At least three people are reported to have been killed in the man's morning-long spree, which began in the nearby municipality of Carcassonne when he hijacked a car, executing a passenger and wounding its driver
  • ·       The attack by a van mowing down pedestrians on London Bridge and stabbings in Borough market in which seven were killed and 36 injured. One of the attackers was identified as a U.K. citizen who came to the U.K. with his parents as refugee from Pakistan. Another was from Moroccan origin.
  • ·       The Manchester suicide bombing by Salman Abedi killing 22 and injuring  59 (including many children). Abedi is alleged to have links to a radical imam, Egwilla, now in Libya but formerly a cleric at an Ottawa mosque (becoming a Canadian citizen). He has been accused of promoting violent jihad in Libia [4] He issued the following call to arms: Allah break the backs of the tyrants and the oppressors and the unjust and those nations of the world that are with the…We are waiting for martyrdom in the name of Allah. And by Allah this is our path until we push back evil. We will not stop or resign.
  • ·       The April killing of a policeman on the Champs Elysees in Paris
  • ·       The April attack in Stockholm where four people were killed and at least fifteen were injured when a man drove a truck down a busy shopping street. The man has allegedly admitted being a member of ISIS and told police investigators that he had “achieved what he set out to do”.
  • ·       A militant attack on a bus in Egypt, killing 28 Coptic Christians—the fourth deadly attack against the countries Christans.
  • ·       A takeover of Marawi in the Philipines by a group led by Isnilon Hapilon, an Arabic-speaking Islamic preacher known for his expertise in commando assaults who pledged allegiance to ISIS in 2004 leading Dutarte, the Philipine president to declare martial law[5].
  • ·       In March a London attacker mowed down pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, killing two men and two women and injuring many others.
  • ·       December 2016, Christmas market truck attack in Berlin killing 12 and injuring 48. 
  • ·       In July 2016 in Nice, a terrorist in a lorry mowed down revelers who had just finished watching a firework display to mark Bastille Day in France. The horrific rampage killed 84 people and injured hundreds of others.
  • ·       March 2016, two suicide bombings in Brussels  killed 32 people and wounded more than 300 other victims in a day of terror. 
  • ·       November 2015-A series of terrifying attacks in Paris killed 130 victims and injured hundreds of others.
  • ·       The 2009 “honour killing” of his three daughters and first wife in a car submerged in a canal in Kingston by Mohammad Shafia , his wife and their son (who were imprisoned in 2012 for life with no chance of parole for 25 years).
  • ·       ISIS  still in Syria and elsewhere although their dreams of a caliphate have been shattered. Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan,Pakistan, Somali etc.,
  • ·        Boka Haran and other Islamists in Northern Nigeria have killed thousands of Christians and kidnapped many.—6,000 Christians were killed in the first six months of this year alone[6].
  • ·       In a sermon in Montreal, at the Al-Andalous Islamic Center, Imam Sayed al- Ghitawi included the following: “O Allah, destroy the cursed Jews. Oh Allah, shows us the black day you inflict on them. Oh Allah, make their children orphans and their women widows”[7]

This list is only a sampling of the most recent attacks, Wikipedia lists a total of more than 20,000 killed plus 52,000 injured[8].  Moreover it ignores the violent struggles between rival Muslim factions /countries—Shiites, Sunni etc.

Government’s Task

In light of such incidents, governments obviously have a duty to protect its citizens. As Romans 13 teaches (vs. 4) “he is God’s servant to do you good…he does not bear the sword for nothing…an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer”. As the Westminster Confession's chapter 23 [9] states, "It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever.” The government, then, has to protect its people from being harmed by others-- also those who are motivated by religion-- including Islam.

Within the country, that is likely to mean increased surveillance and, perhaps, detention of suspects. It is striking that several of those involved in the incidents above were previously “known to police.” As for immigration and refugees, extreme vigilance is required to, as far as possible to exclude potential terrorist attackers.

Are all Muslims to be feared?

Does that mean the government should simply ban immigration and visits of all Muslims since the noted terror attacks were carried out by Muslims?  Most Muslims would vehemently object to such a ban since they argue such attacks have nothing to do with Islam. Two recent letters to the editor, for example, argue:

The Manchester attacks were conducted under the concept of “jihad”—the concept of killing innocent civilians in the name of religion. The irony here is that this is completely false. These ‘jihadists’ are conducting violence based on an extreme misinterpretation of jihad. Causing any sort of harm, or suffering goes against the peaceful nature of Islam. In fact, the word ‘Islam’ literally means ‘peace’ and the Qur’an—the Holy Book of Islam—unequivocally rejects any such violence. As an Ahmadi Muslim, I strongly condemn these attacks against humanity and want to assure Canadians that the Muslim majority does not subscribe to such extreme beliefs.[10]


As a member of the Ahmadi Muslim community, I extend my condolences to all the innocent civilians and stand with them in mourning their loss. Like many others, I am at a loss for words and confused. … As a Muslim, I am taught to forgive, tolerate, and promote peace. I don’t know what ISIS is trying to accomplish by claiming responsibility for this disgusting act of terrorism. But, it has nothing to do with Islam[11].

This claim to peace is also found in the introduction in an English translation of the Quran[12]

The Quran is, from the beginning to end, a book which promulgates peace and in no way countenances violence. It is true that jihad is one of the teachings of the Quran. But jihad, taken in its correct sense, is the name of peaceful struggle rather than any kind of violent action.

On the other hand, other letter writers stress that these attacks are a matter of religion.

We comfort ourselves with such bromides at our peril. Of course, it’s about religion—the religion that has jihad, the eternal holy war against the infidel, as a core tenet. …having the courage to state that unpleasant truth is a prerequisite for confronting and defeating those waging jihad in our time.

Islamic Fundamentalist Theology?

               The terrorism embodied in ISIS is not of recent origin but rather centuries old. Their goal is to establish an Islamic theocracy—to unite the Muslim world under the black banner of Khilafa (or Caliphate), and to establish their set of divine laws (Sharia) on Earth.[13] This author, Ahmed Shah, goes on to argue that it is hard to find any Isis atrocities that are not sanctioned by Islamic texts. For example, even the execution of apostates or the taking of female sex slaves can be justified by religious texts. He argues that the Muslim community must embrace bold thinkers who are prepared to reform Islam and its traditions and reinterpret violent passages within Islamic scriptures to combat Islamic extremism. It’s clear then that Muslim scriptures do support terrorist endeavors. As one of my relatives concluded:

A simple search of Google gives almost equal results that either say Islam is fundamentally flawed and evil, versus it being loving but just infected with bad people.

Cornelus Van Dam, in a recent article , “Is Islam a religion of peace?[14]” provides the following from a book by Quereshi:

The word Islam refers to the peace that comes from surrender (to Islam). ..If you convert, you will have safety through surrender. ..There are military connotations here and therefore,”to contend that Islam signifies peace in the absence of violence is incorrect. Islam signifies a peace after violence, or under the threat of it.’ Islamic history is full of war and violence ‘No one can claim that Islam is a religion of peace in the sense that the religion has been historically devoid of violence, neither in its origins nor in the history of the global Muslim community. Apart from the first thirteen years of Islamic history, when there were not enough Muslims to fight, Islam has always been an elaborate practice or doctrine of war.

Van Dam, in fact, concludes that progressive Muslims who want Islam to be a religion of peace do not have much of a foothold. They do not have the authority of Mohammad and the Quran to back them up. Rather, “Violent expressions of Islam adhere more consistently and more literally to the foundational texts of the Islamic faith, the Quran and the hadith”[15]

Moderate Muslims?

If Islam is really a religion of peace, wouldn’t we expect more widespread condemnation from "moderate" imams when these atrocities occur? Are there, in fact, many moderate imams who can lead the “reform” suggested above? One of my family wrote:

Are all imams fanatics in preaching Sharia law? I read plenty of former Muslims who say they are, and further, I have read that a part of the strategy that Muhammad laid out was for some imams to intentionally appear moderate until the bulk of the recruits are in the land they intend to take[16].  

The current cultural climate of Sweden and the U.K. are different than Canada and the US.  In those cultures it's hard to find moderate imams, whereas 20 years ago one could find them.  I suggest that Canada today, is 20 years younger than those countries.  The "moderates" in the Islam army have a role to play while the troops are immigrating to the country in question.  They say they are moderate to cast doubt on the true intentions of their brotherhood. But in the end when they develop critical mass in a society, the "moderates" take off their sheeps clothing.   Some suburbs of London are so heavily Muslim that white women are urged by the police to refrain from ever entering for fear of being gang raped (something the Koran allows them to do)[17].

My sister, who went to Mali on an evaluation trip, found that “the older established Imams and Muslims were very upset with the influx of the modern Muslims. Their interpretation of the Quran was quite different from what the new Imams were wanting. They were terrified of those groups”. This suggests both the existence of moderate imams as well as a recent reemphasis on the violent aspects of Islam.

Van Dam, in another article[18] reports on a credible study that found significant extremist influence in Canadian mosques and Islamic schools, e.g. “there is nothing but extremist literature in the mosque libraries” and “the voice of extremists is everywhere from the mosques and their libraries to the halls of government”. They conclude that “many Muslim youth in Canada are influenced by a steady stream of extremist messages…by mosques, schools, Islamic association and the Internet”. The report notes that there are humanists or modernist Muslims who want “Islam to be a modern religion based on its earlier beliefs in rationality, empiricism and a question for knowledge through the scientific process. However, the humanists are frequently ignored and “the Islamists are currently winning the struggle.”

Yes, there are moderate Muslims but their voices are not heard as often as necessary, nor do they appear to have strong “scriptural” backing.

 Should Muslim immigration be limited?

Given the above, what should government do about Muslim immigration and refugees? Since government is responsible for the safety of its citizens and especially to prevent attacks (physical and otherwise) inspired by religion (as noted above), the safe thing would be to close the borders to all Muslims—since the Quran can and is being interpreted as justifying hostilities against all “infidels”. However, I think that would be wrong. The command to Love your Neighbour (and even your enemies) would suggest that we do not penalize all Muslims[19] because some adhere to a violent Jihadist view of the Quran. That would apply especially to refugees--whether arriving at our doorstep or housed in refugee camps. Moreover, we need to recognize that freedom of religion cuts both ways. If we want freedom for Christians to go anywhere—including missionaries, we cannot exclude those of other religions.

That does not mean that we should not limit the numbers that we allow to enter. There are limits to the amount of immigrants that can be integrated even when they have skills, training and language ability as per Canada’s point system. Integration of refugees without language and work skills is even more difficult. The desirable amount will have to be a matter of ongoing discussion depending on variations in the economy. When lots of Canadians are out of work, the amount of newcomers should obviously be reduced even though their entrance will benefit the country in the long run. It is at such times that far right racism rears its ugly head with vandalism of mosques etc. Government must also be able to control such excesses.


Given the apparent underlying “theological” backing for violent jihadism and recent history of violent attacks, “extreme” vetting appears to be in order. All immigrants (and refugees) should be carefully interviewed as to background (an association with terrorist groups) and motivation including (for Muslims) their interpretation of Islamic teachings. This should be concluded by a sworn declaration before admittance is granted and repeated before citizenship is granted. Such declaration should include the following[20]:

  • · Promise to obey the law of the land
  • · Acceptance of freedom of religion
    • the equality of all Muslims and non-Muslims the right of every individual to choose his/her religion
  • Uphold the separation of church and state
    • Promise not to seek any application of Sharia law outside the mosque[21].
  • · Promise to do their utmost to integrate into the host society

Of course, this vetting and oath is no guarantee that violent attacks will be prevented. Apparently, it is permitted for Muslims to lie to “infidels”. Moreover, these attacks have also been authored by those who were born and raised in the West. Nevertheless, government must do its best to ensure that potential attackers are kept out of the country. It must also do its best to ensure equality of all religions within the country and protect against religiously inspired discrimination and violent attacks by those already within its borders. However, that’s beyond the scope of this post.

[1] This post arises out of a private family email exchange. In this post I have picked from an extensive discussion without specific credit. My thanks go out to Rev. Tim Black and Andrew Douma --who contributed at length to the discussion-- as well as Jack Boersema, Attie Sandink and Michelle Vandergriendt
[2]  Graeme Hamilton, “With faith comes altruism”, National Post,May 20, 2017,p. A6
[3] Michael Petrou, “The Greatest Exodus of our Time”, National Post, July 15, 2017, pp.A10-A14
[4]  Steward Bell, “Bomber linked to Canadian Imam”, National Post, May 26, 2017, p. A1.
[5] Jim Gomez & Teresa Cerojano, “Philippines launches anti-terror attack, National Post, May 26, 2017, pA11
[6] Cornelis Van Dam,” Nigerian Genocide of Christians”, Clarion Sept. 7,2018
[7]  Robert Lantos, “Words Matter”, National Post, May 26, 2017, p. A13
[10] Kashif Solail, Calgary, Letter to the Editor, National Post, May 30, 2017
[11] Saba Sadiq, Toronto, Letter to the Editor, National Post, May 30, 2017
[12] The Quran, translated by Maulana Wahidduddin Khan Farida Khanam, Goodword books, 2016
[13] Ahmed Shah, “Muslims must tackle radical theology issue”, National Post, Nov. 2,2017, p.A9
[14] In an article entitled “Islamic Reformation?” in Clarion, Nov. 3, 2017, p. 619 which is based largely on a book by Nabeel Quereshi, Seeking Allah, finding Jesus.
[15] Qureshi p. 92.
[16] The writer ascribed this notion to a book, A History of the Middle East by Peter Mansfield. There are also indications that Islamists such as Turkey’s Erdogan are encouraging Muslims to expand their influence through the cradle by having large families. See Cornelis Van Dam, “Conquest by the Cradle,”, Clarion, June 16, 2017, p.353
[18] Cornelis Van Dam, “Lovers of Death?”, Clarion, July 14,2017, p.401
[19] Of course, neighbor love can also be shown by marshalling government resources to support potential refugees in their own country or protected neutral zones. However, current reality suggests that is not possible as the only option. It’s not a case of “either, or” but all alternative.
[20] See a study by Sam Solomon and E Al Maqdisi, “Modern Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration” in Van Dam’s article “Conquest by the Cradle”, op. cit.
[21] i.e. “church discipline” applies only within the “church”, does not apply to those who withdraw and cannot apply contrary to law, e.g. “honour killing.”

Friday, 23 March 2018

Cap-and-Trade better than Carbon Tax

           In my last post[1], I noted that I, personally, am a climate change sceptic[2]. I also believe that we should not take any major action to mitigate the feared implications of climate change unless our major trading partner, the U.S, does likewise. However, I then went on to argue that if we must do something, then a carbon tax should not be rejected out of hand because it provides more opportunity for the market (businesses and consumers) to freely make economic choices than government regulation. For example, if the tax is high enough, businesses will seek alternative ways to produce. I also, mentioned in passing that a cap-and-trade system as instituted by Ontario and Quebec is, in principle, better than carbon taxes as a means to harness the ability of the market to fight carbon and other forms of pollution. While seeking the same objectives as a carbon tax, it achieves its goals at a lower overall cost for society. From a stewardship perspective that is important, since we don’t want to waste any of our God-given resources. I will expand on that in this post. However, I will first add a bit to what I said about regulation in the last post.

Some regulation will remain necessary.

In the past, I noted, regulation (command-and-control) was the main tool of environmental policy. Government bureaucrats specify what companies and consumers can and cannot do. Regulation, is costly and enforcement is frequently inadequate. Past regulation has frequently been too precise or with too short a compliance deadline, so that flexibility to implement the latest, best technology is reduced. I recognize, that, in practice, carbon taxes and cap-and-trade may also be implemented with a host of regulations and exemptions and, therefore, market choice and efficiency may be reduced. We should seek to reduce such over-regulation while exemptions might be better attained through other ways which do not affect the favourable incentives intended by these two policies.

Moreover, government regulation will have to remain a significant part of environmental policy. For the most toxic pollutants, for example, outright bans are the only possibility. Bans may also be required in particularly sensitive areas. The Chinese government, for example, banned all tree cutting in the flood-prone Yangtze basin because”trees standing are worth three times as much as trees cut” because of the flood control service provided by the forests.[3] In other cases, such as mandatory minimum efficiency standards for cars or appliances or some pollutant emissions, simple regulation may prove most effective. As much as possible, such regulations should be restricted to specifying the result (the limits desired) rather than mandating how that result is to be achieved so that companies are left free to decide how best to meet these standards.

Regulation is also necessary to specify conditions for companies to operate in particularly environmentally sensitive areas e.g. drilling for oil and gas. Even then, however, the market can be used to supplement the regulations by requiring ‘environmental performance bonds’ (an insurance to be bought by companies who undertake environmentally sensitive actions such as building a pipeline through nature reserves). The market determined price of the bond will reflect the potential liability and force the companies to consider that cost. Moreover, in case of actual damage, the money can be used to rehabilitate the environment and compensate victims

            Detailed government regulation is also required when the interests of parties in the marketplace conflict. For example, in 1990, European governments were concerned with the reduction of emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which escaped when cars were being refuelled. The problem could be addressed either on the cars by installing a carbon cannister that would absorb the vapour or, alternatively, by installing a vapour balancing system on the pumps. Obviously, the oil companies and the automobile manufacturers could not agree on the choice. The German government finally made the decision in favour of the pump system.[4]
            In any case, the need for regulation continues. Continual review is, however, a necessity–if only to ensure the regulations do not become obsolete. Where regulation is deemed to be necessary, we must be prepared to devote adequate resources to establish and enforce them.

The Advantage of Cap-and-Trade

            Cap-and- Trade (also referred to as a system transferable pollution permits) has the government set a cap for the total amount of carbon (or other pollution) emissions. Allowances or “rights to pollute” are then divided over all the companies either by auction or otherwise. The auctions generate revenue for the government.The key to the overall cost saving is that these allowances may be bought and sold. A simple[5] example, will, hopefully make this clear. Consider the following companies who pollute different amounts (Column 1) and differ in how much it costs them to clean up their pollutants (Column 2):

            Table 1                                   Cost of
                                    Total                    per
                                    Pollutants        pollutant
(1)                    (2)

Company  1        6,167              $100
Company  2        5,500                125
Company  3      25,000                150
Company  4      50,000                225
Company  5      30,000                300

Now consider the cost of cleanup if the government mandated a cut of 10% across the board. The cost to society of every company reducing their pollutants by 10% would be $2,530,000.

            Table 2                                   Cost of
                                                            Cleanup           10 %                Cost
                                    Total                    per               pollutants           of
                                    Pollutants        pollutant          Cleaned up      Cleanup
(1)                    (2)                   (3)                      (4)
        (2) x (3)
Company  1        6,167              $100                     617              $     61,670
Company  2        5,500                125                     550                     68,750
Company  3      25,000                150                   2,500                   375,000
Company  4      50,000                225                   5,000                1,125,000
Company  5      30,000                300                   3,000                   900,000
                                116,667                                      11,667               $2,530,000

            Now suppose we have a cap-and-trade scheme that would allow the rights to pollute to be traded. Let’s assume a market price for pollutants at $130[6]. At that price, it would pay Companies 1 and 2 to clean up all their pollutants since they would be able to sell their right to pollute. On the other hand, it would pay the other three companies to buy these rights instead of cleaning up since their cost to clean-up are higher than this market price.

Table 3                                               Cost of
                                                            Cleanup           amount            Cost
                                    Total                    per               pollutants           of
                                    Pollutants        pollutant          Cleaned up      Cleanup
(1)                    (2)                   (3)                    (4) 
                                                                     (2) x (3)
Company  1        6,167              $100                 6,167               $   616,700
Company  2        5,500                125                 5,500                    687,500
Company  3      25,000                150                      0                       0
Company  4      50,000                225                      0                       0
Company  5      30,000                300                   .  0                       0         .    
                               116,667                                      11,667              $1,304,200
By having only those companies clean up that can do so at the lowest cost, 10% of pollutants can be cleaned up for $1,304,200 rather than  $2,530,000. The same amount of pollution is cleaned up at a much lower cost under cap-an-trade than by government mandate a cut across the board. That’s the case for cap-and-trade!

Not only does every company have a financial incentive to reduce its pollution, with tradeable rights, the market will also ensure that the overall cost to society of pollution reduction will be as low as possible. Companies with more difficult problems can, in the first instance, buy up the available rights to pollute. As these rights become more expensive, the incentive to find technological solutions will increase. While the government enforces the overall permitted amounts, the market decides the most cost-effective way to reduce. In fact, the market price of the traded permits also serves as price signal. The higher the market price for the permit, the more incentive there is for innovators to devise new remedial technology or processes.  A final benefit of the system is that environmentalists or governments can speed up the clean-up process by themselves getting together and purchasing--and not using--the pollution rights. In Cleveland, for example, a group called INHALE sprung up to buy and bid up the price of sulphur-dioxide credits so that U.S. utilities would be forced to clean up their own emissions.[7] Such action reduces pollution immediately and, by raising the price of rights, increases the incentive for others to reduce pollution.

            Of course, the effectiveness of tradeable quotas will depend on the extent of the permitted emission amounts—the cap. Any cap will be an arbitrary number but can be reduced over time to get the desired result while generating the least amount of disruption (e.g. in terms of employment). As such, this policy alternative (just like green taxes), is consistent with our conditional preference for the market.  Since climate change is a global issue, it would seem reasonable that these allowances be traded over wide regions as has been done for carbon in a linked market by Ontario, Quebec and California. If you believe in the need to reduce carbon, it doesn’t matter where this reduction takes place. The problem is, however, to what extent these markets are actually harmonized e.g. are the caps equally burdensome etc? Only time will tell whether the implementation of this system will achieve the desired effect. In any case, cap-and-trade is, in principle, a useful policy tool in the fight against climate change—if you believe in the need to do something about it.

[2] That skepticism was reinforced by a recent post I read by Matt Ridley, “The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science”,
[3] Lester R. Brown, Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble, W.W. Norton & Co. Ltd., New York, 2003.  p.209.
[4] Lévêque and Nadaï, in Henk Folmer, H. Landis Gable and Hans Opschoor, editors; Principles of Environmental and Resource Economics: A Guide for Students and Decision-Makers, Edward Elgar, Aldershot, UK & Brookfield, US., 1995,p.317
[5] And, admittedly, simplistic.
[6] This market would come to equilibrium at a price between $126 and $149
[7] Robert Sheppard, “How much am I bid for a pair of carbon-dioxide credits?” The Globe and Mail, Jan 17, 1998.