Cut stuff like CFC's and pollutants, not carbon dioxide. Depends...carbon dioxide has not empirically proven to be a threat, while it is been proven to be a benefit to plant growth.
Damn it, they should divert funding the Kyoto protocol would cost to research into fusion power or something.
And I dislike the United States' rebuttals: its NOT because that it will affect their stupid little nationalistic plutocratic capitalist concerns, but rather because reducing CO2 emissions could cause plant growth to slow down.
Damn it, they should divert funding the Kyoto protocol would cost to research into fusion power or something.
And I dislike the United States' rebuttals: its NOT because that it will affect their stupid little nationalistic plutocratic capitalist concerns, but rather because reducing CO2 emissions could cause plant growth to slow down.
Is this really about doing something that works or is it about PR. I'm not really an expert on emission standards and I won't pretend to be, but this sounds a bit ridiculous. Will there be a time in Europe where pollution is bought and sold at the various exchanges?
Comment