Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
The political will isn't there to make a 95% cut in C02 emissions by 2050 that is required by the models to prevent the 2 degree warning. So the current plans being proposed are guaranteed to fail. Instead they are just expensive political window dressing designed to further enrich polluters and tax consumers. Why is the biggest oilman in Texas in favour of Carbon Trading? Money of course.
So lets get work on solutions that have a chance to succeed. Start developing the geo-engineering solutions now. They appear to be cheap and effective.
|
Geo-engineering is attractive in some ways, but in others very dangerous and could have serious unintended consequences if we aren't careful.
I'm not a big fan of cap and trade either though - to me it mostly seems to be about moving money around, and props up declining industries and poorly run companies at the expense of growing industries and companies. If you're going for an economic driver, I think a carbon tax that starts relatively low but increases over time would be better, so long as it is offset by decreased income taxes (though that opinion will probably get me lynched in Alberta). I don't think we should depend completely on a single approach though - further investment in alternative energies, emission reductions technology, etc. are important, as well as helping developing economies transition directly to low-emission technologies.