John Count me in. The guys trying to defraud the carbon trading schemes are so much brighter than the ones setting the rules that there is no chance of ever saving carbon, just making billions for the traders.
Slightly counter to one of your recent emails, the design of the most critical part of the cloud albedo hardware, the spray generation and filtration system system is now almost complete and drawings will be taken to subcontractors very soon. After about four man-years it is now hard to go much further with no money. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering and Electronics University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland tel +44 131 650 5704 fax +44 131 650 5702 Mobile 07795 203 195 [email protected] http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs John Nissen wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
