The Carbon Folly


Newsweek – March 12, 2007 issue

An interesting discussion on the concept of trading emissions between governments and companies so that the world can make its goals of reducing CO2 emissions.  This is a great read if you believe that humans can change the climate by reducing CO2 output.

Al Gore: A responsible approach to solving this crisis would be to authorize the trading
of emissions … globally.

the value of carbon credits in circulation, now about $28 billion, will climb to $40 billion by 2010

The notion that emissions trading is going to make a significant dent in global warming is deeply flawed

…allowing polluters in the developed world to shift the burden of making cuts onto factories in the developing world

…emissions trading may have set back the battle against climate change
by diverting investment from renewable-energy technology, which
arguably is essential to any long-term solution.

real winners in emissions trading have been polluting factory owners
who can sell menial cuts for massive profits, and the brokers who
pocket fees each time a company buys or sells the right to pollute.

The nearly $6 billion already spent on projects to curb emissions of
HFC-23, a potent greenhouse gas, had the same impact on the environment
as would $132 million worth of equipment upgrades.

Many experts think a carbon tax would be the better alternative. It’s
more straightforward and jargon-free, and would prevent much of the
“gaming of the system” that’s plaguing carbon trading.

You can read the article here.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

1 thought on “The Carbon Folly”

  1. Steve Beery says:

    More than likely, there will be a cap and trade program as well as a carbon tax. Both will be paid for by me, the consumer. All based on a theory that can’t hold water.
    Do you know any lawyer willing to file a class action suite against the UN and the IPCC on the behalf of us consumers?

Comments are closed.