commit a7dbec6f67014f8b3089487f08a70fb6b510e7d1
parent 81d5aef14ecd68096ebab19fc9649885686fdb23
Author: Christian Grothoff <christian@grothoff.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 18:10:07 +0100
fix bib
Diffstat:
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/2022-privacy/literature.bib b/2022-privacy/literature.bib
@@ -6,6 +6,17 @@
howpublished = {\url{https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_toxic_asse.html}},
}
+
+
+@Book{carbon,
+ author = {Ricardo Coelho},
+ editor = {Joanna Cabello and Tamra Gilbertson},
+ title = {Green is the Color of Money: The EU ETS failure as a model for the “green economy”},
+ publisher = {Carbon Trade Watch},
+ year = {2012},
+ month = {June},
+}
+
@PhdThesis{cwps,
author = {J. Appelbaum},
title = {Communication in a world of pervasive surveillance},
diff --git a/2022-privacy/privacy.tex b/2022-privacy/privacy.tex
@@ -324,12 +324,12 @@ Here, the ECB fails to learn the hard lessons from the introduction of $CO_2$
emissions certificates, where initial allocations were calculated based on
``presumed emission needs'' of certain industries, resulting in windfalls for
shifty polluters that managed to rig the calculations, giving them excess
-certificates that they could then resell. If CBDC holdings are limited and
+certificates that they could then resell.~\cite{carbon} If CBDC holdings are limited and
financially attractive, there will clearly again be businesses profiting from
organizing their business data to obtain high account limits. This kind of
socially unproductive optimization will happen regardless of the specific
rules that the ECB will design. Thus, this is a fundamentally flawed design.
-% FIXME: add citations on CO2 certificate abuses?
+
The ECB's focus on account-based solutions seems to have caused it to ignore a
better solution that was proposed in~\cite{snb2021}, even though it was
