It looks as if the much vaunted Clean Development Mechanism, developed under the Kyoto Protocol and run by the U.N. is not quite having the emissions reduction effect that was it's primary goal.
According to this from the Guardian, things are not going too well under the schemes; "evidence is accumulating that it is increasing greenhouse gas emissions behind the guise of promoting sustainable development. The misguided mechanism is handing out billions of dollars to chemical, coal and oil corporations and the developers of destructive dams - in many cases for projects they would have built anyway."
"chemical companies can earn almost twice as much from selling CERs as from selling refrigerant gases. This has spurred concern that refrigerant producers may be increasing their output solely so that they can produce, and then destroy, more waste gases."
Wherever something is traded, there's almost always a small proportion of that trade that is corrupt to some degree or other. This, however, seems to indicate corruption, cheating and falsification on a mega scale. The thing is, these schemes are potentially rather important to the future of humanity, and they need to be managed and controlled carefully and correctly.
But, under the control of the U.N. , properly managed and controlled? Fat chance!
Addendum:
And, of course, where there is trading, whether in carbon credits or anything else, and there is a chance to line your own pockets, the sharks circle about and dart in every now and again to take their own substantial piece of the action. I'm talking, of course, about lawyers, as this from MSNBC explains.
Junkk.com promotes fun, reward-based e-practices, sharing oodles of info in objective, balanced ways. But we do have personal opinions, too! Hence this slightly ‘off of site, top of mind' blog by Junkk Male Peter. Hopefully still more ‘concerned mates’ than 'do this... or else' nannies, with critiques seen as constructive or of a more eyebrow-twitching ‘Oh, really?!' variety. Little that’s green can be viewed only in black and white.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
1 comment:
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.
I am still rather proud what others, and I, are DOING with our little efforts in reduction and/or mitigation.
ReplyDeleteBut this is the giddy limit.
I feel like we are just p*ssing into a highly corrupt, massively subsidised, 'who cares what the enviROI is', 'jobs-for the-boys' wind.
Speaking of which, I am seeking grants not to look for oil under No 41's garden, and instead divert my efforts to a turbine in my tree-surrounded garden.