Most people and institutions in the world today see climate change as the greatest threat to the environment and world stability that has ever been faced. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN sponsored body of over 2,000 scientists, has come to the conclusion that worldwide temperatures are likely to rise on average by 2-5 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years. They admit that it is perfectly possible that the rise could be greater than this, but even if it is contained within these boundaries, the effects will be disastrous. Sea-levels will rise, swamping heavily populated areas such as Bangladesh and the Netherlands. The increase in temperature will rapidly kill what rainforest is left after the deforestation that has already occurred, leading to a further massive release of carbon into the atmosphere from the dead trees. Weather will fluctuate wildly, leading to a massive increase in natural disasters, and bringing diseases such as malaria as far north as Britain.

Facing such a global catastrophe, it might be thought that it would be in everyone’s best interests to do something about it. Unfortunately, the best agreement that the world’s leaders have managed to come up with is the Kyoto Protocol, which commits the nations of the world to a 5.2% reduction of carbon dioxide levels, based on 1990 levels. The IPCC has concluded that, at the very least, a 60% cut in carbon dioxide emissions is needed immediately to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Needless to say, based on those numbers, the Protocol is pitifully ineffective. It simply will not achieve any kind of meaningful result, even if all the nations involved ratify and achieve their targets. As if this was not bad enough, however, the picture gets worse as we realise that one of the main mechanisms that will be used to achieve those carbon dioxide reductions within the Kyoto