Why a 4C Warmer World Must be Avoided: A Report for the World Bank

And who came up with and implemented this system? The same people, like you, who believe the end of days is near unless we do something. We must do something, anything, please help us types. Anything, even if it's not a good system. (1) It will not reduce CO2 emissions, (2) it will cost CA business $1 Billion a year (of course, many will move out of state or pass on the cost to consumers = higher unemployment or higher costs) (3) the banks and financial system will make a killing (isn't this the same too big too fail that was at the root of the financial collapse -- interesting they still find new ways to make money at our expense).

Better than nothing, I think not!

Reducing > capping > unrestrained growth in emissions.

Of course you ignore the costs of GW cause you imagine it won't happen.

And you are ignoring the conclusions of the leading advocate of climate change, James E. Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies who "Cap and trade, he said, does little to cut emissions. But it does enrich the trading desks of banks, which have a new market to explore."

CA c&t is not fed c&t.

I'm not familiar with the details, but if it involves a true cap, it will cut the growth of emissions.

There will still be additional CO2 added with cap only; the idea is to stop the growth in output as a first step.

Make the fossil fuel burners pay the full cost of their pollution up front. Or at least make a partial down payment.

Classic, You make a declaration that the two are not the same, then state you are not familiar with the details. You base your conclusion to justify your point of view without (admitily) knowing the facts.

Why not just plant more trees so that we have the capacity to handle more CO2?

Why not allow the victims of pollution the opportunity to sue polluters to get them to stop polluting, rather than let them pay to pollute? Certainly you wouldn't advocate letting a criminal pay his penalty, and then commit his evil deed?

Why not show the scientific study that says that will be sufficient?



In this case, the "evil deed" is already being committed.

And the perpetrators are likely to be dead and/or unlikely to have the resources to pay the damages cause they've all been distributed as "profits."

Kinda like people today are unwilling to pay for the damages of slavery. Most people alive today say they had nothing to do with it.

Why not show the scientific study that says that will be sufficient?

In this case, the "evil deed" is already being committed.

Are you seriously comparing this to slavery?

Can it be government-funded, peer-reviewed by like-minded scientists, with complex proprietary math models that I can't let people see?

I thought it was a given that trees help consume CO2. This whole article seems to be focused on improving the levels of CO2 in the air, I don't see the harm in advocating planting trees?

All the more importance to stop them?

Why not just plant more trees so that we have the capacity to handle more CO2?

What? You think climate models are secret?

I don't either. But since large amounts of land are being deforested, it seems like a losing battle. Are you willing to pay peasants in 3rd world countries to not deforest land for crops?

Do you have any data on how many trees need to be planted to offset fossil fuel burning?

Which is what C&T aims to do....