I am not looking for what you think the benefits are, But what the actual treaty says the benefits are (how much will the temperature decline). And, how much do they (the framers of the treaty) think it will cost?|||The problem is they didn't really do a cost-benefit analysis.
They also didn't include China %26amp; India, the fastest growers.
The US, which is the biggest producer, refuses to sign on.
We need to persuade India %26amp; China to use clean coal.
This will cost them more, to produce their electricity.|||From what I've read, they admit that if everyone followed this horrible treaty there would be almost no change in the climate.
As for the economies of those countries who follow it to the letter, they would go from prosperous to non-prosperous in very short order.
That might explain why none of those who've agreed to it are able to follow the stringent rules and those who refuse to follow it are better off altogether.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment