2007-04-18 11:34:26 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
No, its nuts. And who owns the company that's going to sell them? Why, Al Gore, of course. Doesn't that seem like a conflict of interest?
2007-04-18 11:40:53 · answer #1 · answered by Zuker 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Having spent the last three days over at the New & Events Section I'd have to say that the thinking that the answer to the Virginia Tech disaster is more gun control ranks right up there with carbon offsets.
2007-04-18 11:40:09 · answer #2 · answered by Flyboy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Carbon offset credit are an fairly good theory, if carried out staggering. lets say we set a reduce for power use for quite some businesses. employer A has power needs over the reduce yet can't decrease their power use because of lack of proper technologies. employer B is already on the wanted reduce. they could change into extra useful yet can't arise with the money for to finish that. employer A will pay employer B for a carbon offset. employer B makes use of that funds to make investments in new technolgy to diminish its power use way below their required reduce. internet effect is a similar as if both organizations were on the wanted reduce. large loose-market answer to polution. (hiya, that rhymes!)
2016-12-04 06:45:38 · answer #3 · answered by menut 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes--people who act like global warming is a matter of "belief" and then deny mountains of scientific evidence that demonstrates were really trashing the planet...
2007-04-18 11:37:10 · answer #4 · answered by Qwyrx 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes - your previous question.
2007-04-18 11:38:16 · answer #5 · answered by Trevor 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋