the cost of going green , page-5

G'day Belombre,somehow i can't see ETS not happening.
It's big business already re voluntary,and it's obvious now
that some big names see lots of money to be made so all i see is sometime soon it will be the juggernaut that will blow away the sceptics.
No matter what theories people come up with in ways that may sabotage the scheme, as Rudd puts it,there are those that see the massive potential in making a motzah,hopping in for their chop.Greed and self interest will win the day i reckon, as ugly as that sounds.

Peter Saunders inferred this morning that things going belly up(for the time being) in Copenhagen still wouldn't have much impact on Carbon Planet/m2m and i tried for all it was worth to get an insight re the latest ann exactly what it was about, and with who, but he started doing that business speak...you know, like they do, and i had a jackhammer in one ear and an excavator in the other so i
just nodded.

I'm actually in the sceptics camp re the Carbon issue warming up the planet, and more of a believer of Peter Andrews, the Natural Sequence Farming fella.
He's no wanker, and no fence sitter, but he firmly thinks it's the destruction and removal of forests, vegetation etc
that is major cause of the heating up.
Also, compared to Ants,according to him, we contribute bugger all to the carbon problem.
So in that, if we have to indirectly pay to pollute, but in the process encourage forest owners to preserve their forests, rather than give them over to loggers,then good thing i reckon.

There's too much at stake world over now for it not too happen, and i'm happy with Carbon Planets way of dealing with the issue via REDDs