I like the way you've given non-WA nations the ability to avoid tariffs by "opting in." This reads as if it would be possible to trade credits with non-member nations and, if that's the case, I think that's a bad idea. There needs to be a distinction between credits that represent a binding allowance and credits that don't, otherwise nations with zero intention of doing anything to limit their emissions can continue burning all the coal they can find and still sell 100% of their credits to WA nations, completely undermining the system.
Also, call me an old commie but I don't like opening the exchange to private organisations. Like non-WA nations they have no responsibilities under this system so they shouldn't get to cash in, whether by acting as brokers or otherwise. The credits represent an allowance for which governments are answerable. It makes no sense for them to belong to anyone other than a government. If a nation decides internally to meet its national target by giving or selling national credits to organisations then that's different.
You might also be asked how the WA agencies involved are going to effectively assess the emissions of non-member nations when there's no way of requiring that they be granted access. Non-invasive methods are fine but how do you deal with a nation that says "we have zero emissions" or simply ignores the request?
Top marks for completely ignoring RP wank.
What are ASP and GRAA? Is ACE new or does this create it?
In clause 1 you've included carbon in the list of gases - presumably you mean carbon dioxide.
In clause 2 a comma after the word proportional would make it a lot clearer
Clause 3 needs a grammar fix so that the "proceeds of both" part forms a sentence with the first section.
In clause 4 I'd tone down the word punishment if I were you.
Clause 6 needs a comma after sequestration.
