🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew:

Good point - and to no environmental benefit.

Andrew Russell wrote:
> 
> Richard Vialls wrote:
> >
> >As for the cost of implementing Kyoto, I believe that more money can be
> >found for environmental change than you suggest. Many of the
> >environmental improvements that can be made actually benefit companies
> >and governments financially (waste reduction, etc.), for example. To say
> >that we can't afford environmental improvements today is to push that
> >cost onto tommorow - with inflation.
> 
> If the costs of Kyoto compliance as so minor, why did Janet Yelsin,
> Clinton's Economic Advisor REFUSE to give the Clinton Administration's cost
> estimate to Congress last summer?
> 
> Kyoto would require America to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases 31%
> below the level projected for 2010.  That means cutting emissions by 552
> million metric tons per year. This is equivalent to all current emissions
> from either the transportation sector, or the utilities sector, or
> industry. There is no feasible way to do that without putting our economy
> in the tank.
> 
> Andrew Russell
> arussell@bix.com
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> John Shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth: "The only real good technology is
> no technology at all.  Technology is taxation without representation,
> imposed by our elitiest species (man) upon the rest of the natural world."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------