Don’t fund carbon-reducing industries in developing countries
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
The carbon thing — you know, the carbon footprint, the carbon emissions, the carbon credits, carbon, carbon, carbon. Guess I’m running on stupid, because somehow this whole thing makes no sense to me.
I thought, that like water, carbon was a closed system. How does creating a bottleneck benefit the system? Guess it’s not a closed system after all, which means the earth must be “off-gassing” carbon and we’re going to run out one day. Silly me.
So, we, as a “major producer” of carbon emissions, must reduce our output. I think that means major dollar investment to change or modify or retool our current means of life to reduce this “footprint” of ours (hey, isn’t that like going on a major weight loss program?) while spending more money on new industry that will generate lower emissions.
And then because we’re a big, wealthy, fat cat, fancy-schmancy country, those who are engineering this insanity want us to help “fund” (i.e., give up even more boatloads of money) the developing countries so they can do likewise; reduce their developing footprint and build environmentally kinder industries at our expense.
Say what? Are you out of your ever-lovin’ mind? Who signed us up for that?
We’re already giving those “developing countries” boatloads of money as foreign aid. Use it or lose it. Give more? I don’t think so; get out of my living room.
C’mon man, I can’t possibly be the only one who sees the fallacy in this proposition. Just say no.
My big question: who died and left the U.N. in charge?
Michael Gale
Ronan
