Friday, December 14, 2007
Kyoto protocol, worth the cost?
A Tokyo company in Thailand seeks a carbon credit for a new method that will cut carbon emissions by 1800 tons a year.
It costs $26.72 million. It makes one wonder. The factory produces for a market that demands 330 million cans per year and has a capacity for 500 million cans a year. The factory, however, only produces 260 cans a year. It makes one wonder, why don't they just produce the entire need for the market in this one factory, unless there is some on-going cost to produce at this cleaner factory?
If there was not, then why not produce all the cans there, if there is then is this really an efficient way to produce? if a government credit can make it affordable to produce only some of the cans in the "cleaner" fashion, is it really cleaner? or more cost effective.
It seems to me like a government credit is creating false incentives, to produce something that is not sustainable, but rather just pleasing to those who are in charge of disbursing the environmental credits. Good job, Kyoto protocol.
It costs $26.72 million. It makes one wonder. The factory produces for a market that demands 330 million cans per year and has a capacity for 500 million cans a year. The factory, however, only produces 260 cans a year. It makes one wonder, why don't they just produce the entire need for the market in this one factory, unless there is some on-going cost to produce at this cleaner factory?
If there was not, then why not produce all the cans there, if there is then is this really an efficient way to produce? if a government credit can make it affordable to produce only some of the cans in the "cleaner" fashion, is it really cleaner? or more cost effective.
It seems to me like a government credit is creating false incentives, to produce something that is not sustainable, but rather just pleasing to those who are in charge of disbursing the environmental credits. Good job, Kyoto protocol.
