Hi all,
There seems to be growing concerns about cap and trade, for example, yesterday from the New York Times. [1] Here are some reasons against: * There is an illusion of emissions reduction, which may hamper efforts to get significant real reductions from the main polluters. * The cap and trade cannot work on a large enough scale to produce necessary world wide emissions reductions. * The market it crates puts an unpredictable price on carbon, so it is difficult to make investment decisions, especially on renewable energy. * The scheme includes offsetting through approved projects, which are difficult to set up and prone to failure. * Because of above problems, many countries will refuse to sign up to the scheme, further diluting its effect. Jim Hansen describes Cap and Trade as the "Temple of Doom" [2]. Therefore, it is proposed to have a levy on fuels, in order to increase their price, and let market forces reduce the consumption. Now I would argue that the money raised should be spent on geoengineering. If you agree, who could we contact to discuss this idea? Could we get the idea promoted prior to Copenhagen in December, so that an alternative to Cap and Trade gets discussed there? Cheers from Chiswick, John [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/opinion/22wed11.html?th&emc=th [2] http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090505_TempleOfDoom.pdf --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
