And, your actions MUST actually reduce Co2.
For example, under these guidelines Cap and Trade policies would not be permissible.
I create a ton of Co2. You create 1/2 ton because you don't do as much business as me, and my business is much more successful than yours. Total Co2 emitted is 1 and 1/2 ton.
I can't do more business because my Co2 levels are capped at 1 ton, but I have capacity to do much more because there is demand.
So I buy your remaining 1/2 ton of "carbon credits", and produce more, and now emit 1 ton and 1/2 of Co2, and you continue to emit 1/2 ton.
What is the result? 2 tons of Co2 where there used to be 1 ton an 1/2 tons.
What has changed? I had to give money to you, because I'm a successful business, and you're not as successful.
Money was redistributed, Co2 levels INCREASED, not decreased.
That's wealth redistribution, does not decrease Co2 at all. This would not be allowed. If you want to do this, just say I'm taking money from Business A and giving it to Business B, AND skimming a healthy commission off the top. No need to make up stories about wanting to "reduce Co2", just redistribute the wealth, and let politicians skim off the top if that's your goal.
ON THE OTHER HAND, if you want to build a nuclear plant, go for it.
That will actually produce energy that does not produce Co2. I would have no problems with policies that are not about wealth redistribution.
IMO, the Co2 is not a problem, but reliance on oil is a HUGE problem.
Unfortunately, the goal getting rid of Co2 does not reduce reliance on oil, it just moves money around.
If instead, you concentrate on replacing oil, you attack a real problem with real solutions.
here's another example.
Banning SUV's does nothing to reduce Co2. It just moves Co2 production from cars burning gasoline to plants manufacturing batteries, and those batteries being charged by oil fired electric plants.
You're not creating energy to replace oil, you're just picking winners and losers. Teh SuV manufacturers lose because you don't like them, the battery manufacturers and oil fired electric plants win.
On the other hand, if you want to BUILD high speed rail powered by a nuclear plant, that would actually replace oil used, and not just redistribute wealth.
I support a positive approach that creates energy, you support wealth redistribution.
I support making MORE energy.
You support conservation of energy, which does nothing if you don't do anything about population control.
Again, 1 billion mopeds creates much more Co2 than 1 SuV.
This approach does nothing and Co2 emissions continue to increase.
My approach actually reduces Co2 emissions by creating alternative energy, not just skimming money from corrupt programs, or picking winners and losers in the market place.