It\’s a validation.
Other manufacturers in India and China producing similar products are expected to earn an estimated £3.3 billion over the next six years by cutting emissions at a cost of just £67m.
We\’ve saved 3.3 billion of ecological damage at a cost of just 67 million. Hurrah, Hurrah!
This is exactly what we want to be happening, emissions being reduced at the lowest cost.
So what\’s the problem?
“We’ve saved 3.3 billion of ecological damage at a cost of just 67 million.” You are joking, Tim, aren’t you? The story makes it clear we are saving 67 million of alleged ecological damage at the cost of 3.3 billion.
“This is exactly what we want to be happening, emissions being reduced at the lowest cost.”
I don’t want emissions being reduced at any cost. CO2 is not harmful to any measurable extent but it is essential to life and the industries that emit are essential to the global economy.
I agree with DocBud. Markets are good, but not those that are artificially created by government and imposed by force. Then they are just another layer of bureaucracy, and a make work scheme for favoured companies and government departments.
could have sworn the article claimed there were no co2 savings…and it only cost a few billion..
Just to repeat.
CO2 is plant food, not pollution.
“This is exactly what we want to be happening, emissions being reduced… ”
Timmy, we love your economics, but you are fulla shite on the issue of what we want with respect to the environment.
You of all people should understand that we want what what we’ll pay for. In a free and unforced market. No more, no less.
oops, two whats, too beers, oh well, sorry.
The next bubble to burst is the Green bubble.
The very sentence before the one Tim quotes says
Last year The Sunday Times revealed how SRF, an Indian company that produces refrigeration gases at a sprawling chemical plant in Rajasthan, stood to make £300m from selling certificates to overseas companies including Shell and Barclays. The Indian company had spent just £1.4m on equipment to reduce its emissions – and was using the profit to expand production of another greenhouse gas, a thousand times more.
This clearly indicates that the profits gained from ‘pollution’ trading (ie the reward from eliminating pollution) were invested in processes that produced more ‘pollution’ than the status quo ante.
More pollution … at a cost.
This is absolutely the next global scam. As it was always designed to be, of course.
Who was it who said “Never give a sucker an even break”, was it W C Fields?
These carbon credits, are already vested with financial worth, which seems to have no relation to anything real.
What is going to happen, the day we finally twig that CO2 is irrelevant, the planet isn’t warming up anyway, and the carbon trading market is exposed as a mirage?
We don’t have to be trading in these things ourselves, to be hit badly when they collapse.