John Baird provides this analogy to describe carbon emission credit trading as a way to meet Kyoto targets:
"It’s almost like saying around the world we’ve signed a protocol to all go on a diet and lose weight and instead of losing weight, we gain 35 pounds. But we somehow get an out by paying someone in Russia to lose weight for us. And by the way, they don’t lose weight. This just compensates them for weight they lost 20 years ago."
Spending billions of dollars without reducing carbon dioxide emissions at all, even if you pretend it does, just doesn’t seem like a viable solution.
And while I’m on my soapbox, it drives me crazy when people connect Kyoto and pollution. Kyoto is about reducing a particular greenhouse gas – carbon dioxide. We exhale it, and plants need it. It is not pollution. Reduced pollution is actually considered to be a contributing factor to global warming. Meeting Kyoto targets will not reduce pollution.
Powered by Bleezer