carbon credits would mean, in the final tally, that the large landholders would concentrate even more wealth in their hands, as the trade-off cost would be passed to the consumer to purchase the credits instead of lowering emissions. it is almost as dumb as the corn-ethanol fiasco. sounds good in theory, but in application it would enrich large corporate forest holders and screw the guy trying to put food on the table.
And i own some forest land. it would be analogous to paying farmers to not grow crops, except forest land has no primary yearly investment needs if you wish to just grow biomass until a forest fire takes it away.
As to global warming.. yeah, the evidence is pretty ironclad. but so what? it would be bad for those of you trying to pass ocean-front property on to your grandchildren, but for the most part.. there will be MORE precipitation as the heat will evaporate more ocean water. the change will be in the pattern of where it falls. big deal.
Humans can adapt to rising ocean levels. they have in the past. there is panic where there should only be concern; overpopulation is much more of a problem that global warming.
maybe hand out condoms instead of carbon credits?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
