Doug
riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
> Cutting greenwash is empty posturing anyway but it clearly indicates a
> lack of commitment to carbon reduction on the part of the government and
> sends a clear message to all motorists, "Keep on polluting regardless!"
No, that's not the message it gives - and it's nothing _whatsoever_ to do
with "motorists".
> "Britain is trying to weaken European proposals to make governments and
> companies cut their carbon emissions by 2020 to tackle global warming,
> the Guardian has learned. Leaked documents show Britain wants Brussels
> to offset more domestic carbon savings through investment in clean
> projects in the developing world.
Good.
If a reduction of x tons can be made at a cost of £y here and £y/2 there,
why on earth SHOULDN'T the more cost-effective option be taken?
> The move would let firms and countries import more carbon credits to
> count against their pollution targets.
Since CO2's effect on the climate is, we are repeatedly told, global
rather than local, why is this a problem?
Even better, of course, is the fact that implementation of technologies
taken as granted in the west will reduce the emission of locally-acting
pollutants in those developing countries, as well as globally-acting CO2,
making a much bigger improvement - at a lower cost. Everybody's a winner.
Oh, wait. Except the luddites who are trying to use this as a stick to
move everybody back to what they think is some utopian pre-industrial
revolution state - ignoring the fact that, back then, they'd have just
been uneducated peasants. No real difference, then. Other than
the fact they'd have had to have worked their arses off to survive.
> The government's own calculations show the proposed change would allow
> Europe to emit an extra billion tonnes of CO2 from 2013-2020.
...which, instead, would not be emitted elsewhere. The total global
emissions would remain the same, or even be lower.
