Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ddoubleez
There is a target of total emissions.....
Countries with jungle or dense forests would be given money not to cut down their trees to absorb co2 released else where...
One country can invest in greener economies and collect proceeds by selling their unused carbon credits to us or china.....
Not as much a shell game as you may think..........
You confuse me.... How would all countries have to reduce co2 emissions to have an effect, that is Bush logic....
If one country reduces co2, it is not going to mean that another uses more for any reason............ The US is responsible for nearly 1/3 of carbon emissions, with in its borders... AND drives other economies to contribute when we want to buy their shit..........
|
While you have a point to some extent, while many countries have no limitations on their emissions and can spew co2 to their heart's content, and many others are buying credits from less-producing countries so that they can emit more and still be under the "rules", then the whole thing ends up as lip service.
It's like a law, which has to be binding on everyone else it loses its validity.
The US MAY create 1/3 the emissions, and I'd doubt the veracity of that number (just how would someone prove that anyway), but all that means is that 2/3rds are somebody else's fault. And as long as they're not accountable for their emissions we're not going to make real progress at reducing emissions, whether it's truly the necessity it's claimed to be or not.