"Say Company X manufactures a material; one day, it figures out how to manufacture the material more efficiently, or make it lighter, or some such. The material is used by Company Y to make a product. With X's more-efficient, lighter material, Y is able to make its product lighter and more efficient, and thus reduce the product's CO2 emissions. Who gets credit for the carbon reduction? "
Have I missed something in this example? Surely it's the second company? Theirs are the carbon emissions that go down.
The referred article goes all complex on the matter but the basic thing is whose emissions have gone down?
Carbon confusion | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist Magazine:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
No comments:
Post a Comment