2009/12/11 Gabriel de Figueiredo <[email protected]>: > As far as I am concerned, buying carbon offsets are like > buying "indulgences" in the centuries gone by. You can buy the carbon > offsets, but how would they go towards reducing one's > carbon "footprint", so bandied today?
> Better would be to plant trees to the equivalent of the carbon spewed or > maybe invest in solar panels, and finally think about limiting > population growth.? Everyone talks about emissions from this that and > the other, but I haven't heard anyone talk about the emissions from the > human body. Mario observes: This post is a good example of why Goanet needs a voice of reason, truth and peace:-)) Apparently, Gabriel is not aware that the theory of carbon offsets works precisely the way he suggests, i.e. the money paid by CO2 emitters above a certain level determined by the elites who know what's good for everyone else better than they do, is supposed to be used to plant trees and buy solar panels, etc. This is the "offset" in the theory. India and Goa should be re-foresting denuded areas anyway to replace trees that have been cut down because the massive de-forestation that has taken place, along with urban sprawl, has clearly affected and disrupted the normal flow of the seasons. Good luck on limiting population growth unless the elites are planning to take over the world - which I'm sure they would like to do - and force everyone to "limit population growth" as they do in China. This, and the female infanticide that has been a diabolical side effect, has led to a massive mismatch between males and females which will cause far more chaos down the road than the hoax - now slowly unraveling - that greenhouse gases need to be controlled and can be controlled. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular Excerpt: Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false. [end of excerpt]
