On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > I disagree. We have no clue about climate mechanics - just people who claim > to.
And I question your competence to claim that they don't understand them. Scientific consensus can totally be wrong, it has certainly happened before. Might be true this time. But I have yet to see good evidence from you or anyone else to support the claim that the current scientific consensus is wrong. >> "Maybe we should think about how we do things." > > Like buying and selling carbon credits? I still don't understand how > that is supposed to help..at all. Well, the theory is pretty straight forward. If you believe that carbon dioxide is a main component of the greenhouse effect (trapping incoming solar energy and warming the planet as a whole) then a key to alleviating that effect would be to try and maintain some sort of control on the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere and/or being sequestered. If X carbon credits represents Y net change in atmospheric carbon dioxide, then the market comes into play by capping the overall net change (Y) by allowing units of X to be exchanged between groups so that those who are able to reduce their carbon emissions are able to trade part of their quota to a company that is having a more difficult time, thus keeping the overall net change at the desired level Y. There are problems with this system but that is the basic theory. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:310230 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
