....and we produce quite a bit of the products that other countries use. When we're the biggest industrial producer and main provider in the world economy how can we be expected to fit into such strict guidelines...The US is a big producer but it's a bigger consumer: the US has a net trade deficit - to the tune of c $30 billion a month. NB Europe is also a net consumer (deficit $72b for 2000).
Besides whether producer (I would take issue with provider) or consumer, both have their responsibilities. We can't just blame Bush or big business for pollution, the individual consumer has a large part to play. As consumers do we consider environmental impact?
If environmental damage was reflected in the price then it would: allow the market mechanism to affect consumer choice much more effectively than public education (the environment deserves more protection than optional consumer good will); raise revenues to clean up/research; and force firms to develop cleaner and more efficient practices to reduce the environmental tax sting (internalising externalities for any economists out there). [/wary of panaceas emoticon]
Rod
...the Amazon is not CO2 neutral...All it needs is a few more degrees and it will become a permanent source Does this mean they will be the Lungs of the World again - literally
.
Of course the principle of wwh's farts (not meant like that
) is not about whether the carbon will be released but whether it is released as methane or CO2. Methane is 20 times more effective at trapping radiation than CO2. As to the idiocy of the government's sheme I would be loathed to contest. I say close the door and when they're nice 'n' meaty drop in a match and have a barbie
.
I'm done.
