Carbon

Did anyone read the news today? The headline reads: Farmer gets $1.2M to do nothing. Sounds interesting isn't it?

Apparently, a company that spews carbon into the atmosphere is trying to compensate for the damage by paying a farmer not to chop down the trees on his farm so that it will absorb carbon. So, the farmer keeps the hecters of trees alive to 'breathe' in carbon, while the company continues to pour carbon into the atmosphere.

My take is that the company is allowed only X amount of carbon to be released. Currently it spews X+V amount of carbon. The company gets farmers to keep their trees so it can absorb >V amount of carbon. On the whole, the company is responsible for Carbon=X+V-(>V)=

While this theory or calculation sounds 'correct', it seems flawed in terms of some laymen logic. My take is that carbon is closely related to smoke or smog of just toxic gas OK? Say a certain town in China is intoxicated by smog. Lets call this town Beijing. Lets say Beijing people are dying from inhaling too much smog and the company is limited its smog emission. Should the company be allowed to emit MORE harmful gases in the name of "I paid a farmer in USA to plant more trees"? Therefore, more people in Beijing die. But on the global sense, the company is in fact spewing "less than the limit imposed on it."

I shall not explain how the carbon limit is tied up with smoke etc. I do not know much anyway. But oh well, at least let me blog about something I 'think' is intelligent.

Thank You.