2007-03-17 08:45:57 · 5 answers · asked by Jace 4 in Environment
Apparently so.
2007-03-17 08:50:20 · answer #1 · answered by Spud55 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not quite. The "politics", or more accurately the strategy, is that if a business must pay in real time for the environmental damage they cause manufacturing their product, the more likely they are to implement green technologies sooner.
The strategy is to disadvantage all dirty industries equally so that they can still compete in today's market yet conclude that it will cost them less to implement green alternatives in near future.
First it was QA, now green is the new competitive model.
2007-03-17 10:38:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Carbon credits are fundamentally a good idea, supported by those who support free markets.
They allow companies which would go out of business if they had to meet carbon limits to purchase credits from companies that can lower carbon emissions cheaply.
It's a way to get lower carbon levels as cheaply as possible.
Whether private citizens should be allowed to purchase them to run a big house is another question.
2007-03-17 12:58:36 · answer #3 · answered by Bob 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
-----I do not know what Al Gore said--I saw the movie--but having the cost of its pollution included in the price of the product would reduce pollution, as it would make the low-polluting products cheaper and therefore more desirable and more used. ---Jim
2007-03-17 09:03:04 · answer #4 · answered by James M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if companies can make money for not poluting, they will switch to clean energy. this will actualy save them even more money and the world will not die...
2007-03-17 10:19:49 · answer #5 · answered by Thinker Paul 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋