'Better than Kyoto'

'The Economist' pinched the title of my book on Climate Stability Bonds for its lead article on Kyoto. Its artticle is subtitled 'America should use the G8 summit to embrace carbon trading'. But I question that. Carbon trading may well be the most efficient way to reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. But there is no evidence to say it's the most efficient way of stabilising the climate. What about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? Shooting up mirrors into the atmosphere? Cyanobacteria that convert a carbon dioxide atmosphere into one dominated by oxygen? All unlikely to be the sole solution, but not necessarily more unlikely than Kyoto, which puts all our eggs into the one basket. 'Better than Kyoto' means looking at all potential solutions not just the one favoured by 1990s science. Climate Stability Bonds would give incentives to people to investigate all possible solutions and to look for the most efficient. Carbon trading, and Kyoto itself, are dangerous distractions from this goal.