Translate: 
or 
or Google
'Carbon democracy' is a term coined by London's mayor in May 2007 to mean that all persons, cities and nations should be entitled to certain rights to carbon emissions, however their respective carbon budgets should be dictated by a global carbon emissions cap, or limit, that is agreed on by everyone.
As is true with the birth of every democracy, citizens learn early on from trial and error that laws and regulations are needed to ensure that consumers and the environment are protected from unscrupulous businesspersons and special interest groups with purely financial objectives. In the future, governments will realize that a carbon-zero society cannot be achieved by taking shortcuts that may initially appear to be carbon-free alternatives, but in fact damage the environment and also carry hidden or disguised footprints. Nuclear energy, for instance, has a tremendous carbon footprint, which begins with uranium extraction and processing and never-ends with the shipping, storage and security of the continuous stream of the long-lived nuclear waste byproducts. Nuclear power only benefits one group and one group only: energy executives and their financial backers. Everyone else loses, and some people actually die from radiation-related illnesses. The radiological dangers of nuclear power to population centers are far from fully understood and examined. The public perception of the health dangers from radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants have been shaped with disinformation and unsubstantiated claims of safety and citizens need to re-assess the dangers for themselves.
There are other ways that our present carbon democracy is suffering from lack of rules and regulations regarding commercial disinformation. Currently, thousands of individuals and companies are purchasing offsets from for-profit and non-profit organizations, yet those organizations are not being completely transparent (or forced to be transparent) about the reliability of the offsets being offered. You can have a few trees planted on your behalf to ensure that your trip on a carbon-contributing airplane ride is being offset, however if the trees die or burn down in 10 years, the carbon canceling impact is reversed. Consumers are also being exploited via "additionality" and "double counting." Additionality is the notion that a greenhouse-gas reduction might have happened anyway without the involvement of an offset organization. Double counting, on the other hand, is when more than one carbon-conscious citizen or company buys a carbon credit for the same tonnage of reduction from a project, whether through one offset organization or across several offset organizations.
Consumer advocates also have been critical over the growing interest in energy-efficient fluorescent lighting. How is it that the debate on global warming has taken decades to reach a consensus yet there hasn't been a real debate on whether or not Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) do more harm than good? CFLs contain toxic levels of mercury. When they are disposed of improperly - and tens of millions of these bulbs will be thrown into the trash in first- and third-world nations at a pace that will outstrip the growth of recycling programs - the mercury will end up in landfills where they can leach into water supplies and threaten public health. Since there are better and more eco-friendly lighting options than CFLs (i.e., LED lighting), it is surprising that even the EPA is touting all the benefits but not the mercury dangers of CFLs. On the EPA's EnergyStar webpage about CFLs is a witty remark that the dangers posed by mercury to households and the environment are, in actuality, only a 'dim threat.' Similarly, how will municipalities deal with the disposal of the heavy metal components - including arsenic and cadmium - that are used in some types of solar cell/panel technology?
In their interest to help save the planet from the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change, consumers need to be vigilant and educate themselves about their options. Energy alternatives (such as nuclear power), carbon offsets, and methods of carbon reduction (switching to CFLs) may actually do more harm than good or, at the least, fail to deliver on the intended results. We must ensure that our carbon democracy evolves healthily and transparently. As carbon citizens, it is up to each of us to facilitate this evolution.