That doesn't make a lot of logical sense. If I can develop an economy in which my gross reduction is 10x my gross production of carbon, resulting in a 9x NET reduction of carbon - why does it really matter if my Carbon Production is zero or not?

People tend to lose sight of the fact that it's NET reduction of carbon that we're interested in, not GROSS reduction. I'm fine with an industry putting a million tons of Carbon into the atmosphere as long as it pulls out 1.1 million tons through some mechanism.

The fact that Bill's entire presentation is based on a false premise, and that nobody in this thread other than me has called him on it, is disturbing.

Pretty slide presentation aside.