[aalleavitch]

Even if this is the case, addressing the issues caused by CO2 emissions would reveal that there were other sources of environmental damage at work. I just cannot see any incentive in not directly addressing CO2 emissions except to protect the profits of fossil fuel companies. I can't imagine a world where we're more worried about protecting fossil fuel companies because they're being bullied by the big mean sugarcane companies. We should be rooting out all actors looking to benefit from actions with negative externalities.

[kls]

So for the record I am all for renewable, I run solar down here in the Keys and think everyone who can should. That being said my issue is that, there are real environmental disasters that are getting co-oped that won't be fixed by cap and trade and reduced emissions. Some of these like the reefs are dire and will cause an ecosystem collapse, they need to be addressed properly and not co-opted for an agenda. They literally cannot wait and are not some future prediction, they are rapidly collapsing as we type. The other problem is you get band-wagoner jumping on intentional misinformation to co-opt the catastrophe as a here and now prediction of how dire climate change is when it has negligible to any relation to the environmental damage happening. I am not saying climate change is not real, I am not saying we should not do something about it. I am saying there are agendas on both sides and that needs to be considered as it can have dire consequences in the other direction as is the case with the destruction of reefs around industrialized nations. Which just so happen the be the worlds two largest reefs.