Is Carbon Emissions Trading a good or bad idea?

[Michaelangelica]

I thought it might be good then I read this

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Obscenity' of carbon trading

Effective action on climate change involves demanding, adopting and supporting policies that reduce emissions at source as opposed to offsetting or trading.

 

Carbon trading isn't an effective response; emissions have to be reduced across the board without elaborate get-out clauses for the biggest polluters.

 

There is an urgent need for stricter regulation, oversight, and penalties for polluters on community, local, national and international levels, as well as support for communities adversely impacted by climate change. But currently such policies are nigh-on invisible, as they contradict the sacred cows of economic growth and the free market.

 

There is, unfortunately, no "win-win solution" when it comes to tackling climate change and maintaining an economic growth based on the ever increasing extraction and consumption of fossil fuels.

 

Market-based mechanisms such as carbon trading are an elaborate shell-game of global creative accountancy that distracts us from the fact that there is no viable "business as usual" scenario.

 

Climate policy needs to be made of sterner stuff.

I will look for a pro article

here is something from wiki

Emissions trading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Emissions trading (or cap and trade) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants [1].

 

In such a plan, a central authority (usually a government agency) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted.

 

Companies or other groups that emit the pollutant are given credits or allowances which represent the right to emit a specific amount.

 

The total amount of credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level.

[Zythryn]

Carbon emissions trading is definately not a solution. However it is far better than doing nothing at all.

I find it interesting how often people will say something is 'bad' just because it isn't 'perfect'. This applies to lots of things, not just GW.

The only reason I can see for carbon emission trading to be bad is IF people think it is the end of the issue. If they stop looking for better solutions then it ends up being a bad thing.

[Michaelangelica]

Carbon emissions trading is definately not a solution. However it is far better than doing nothing at all.

I find it interesting how often people will say something is 'bad' just because it isn't 'perfect'. This applies to lots of things, not just GW.

The only reason I can see for carbon emission trading to be bad is IF people think it is the end of the issue. If they stop looking for better solutions then it ends up being a bad thing.

Great points that go to the heart of the issue

 

I saw this today.

Green Energy Resources to Offer Carbon Offset Credits @ SYS-CON Media

NEW YORK, NY -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 02/26/07 -- Green Energy Resources (PINKSHEETS: GRGR) will offer "Carbon Offset" credits through its Urban Tree Certification System (UTCS). Green Energy Resources UTCS urban forest management plan reduces carbon from the atmosphere by planting trees and taking wood waste from landfills and turning it into renewable energy. UTCS is designed to create a self-sustaining and revenue generating mechanism to plant millions of trees a year to create carbon sequestration in cities and suburbs. The company will sell the credits to the public, industry and the investment community. UTCS has strict and verifiable standards with measurable results where carbon reductions are permanent,

 

I have started another thread about trees (Planting trees Good or Bad) because some felt they did not reuce carbon. we need to resolve that.

[Michaelangelica]

But she added that carbon trading should not be discounted.

 

"The EU carbon trading scheme hadn't been a fundamental success as they issued more permits than there were emissions," she accepted.

 

However she said despite this flaw it had still "helped bring down emissions".

 

While the scheme could be improved, she said policy-makers should "not throw the baby out with the bathwater".

 

On green taxes, Goldsworthy said the "key thing is to tackle aviation".

 

She said the government's recent doubling of air passenger duty had been a "token gesture" that "is not going to affect behaviour".

 

Taxes should be steeper, she argued, and levied on whole flights rather than individual passengers so as to incentivise efficient travel through full planes.

ePolitix.com - Climate change threat played down

[freeztar]

Yes, airplanes are a major cause. This is from the Society for Conservation Biology website:

 

" More than 95% of SCB's contribution to global warming derives from jet fuel burned to take people to our annual meeting. Each passenger on a fully-booked London-New York flight, for instance, is responsible for about 1.2 tons of carbon. Running our Executive Office for one year generates about 2% as much carbon as our annual meeting. In late May we polled registrants for the 2006 annual meeting about their willingness to increase registration fees to invest in projects that would offset the carbon generated by our travel. Nearly 350 registrants (25% of those registered at that time) responded. The survey results were the same for students and for non-students, and for people from developed or developing countries. By overwhelming majorities, respondents said

 

- SCB should increase registration fees to offset the carbon impact of attending the annual meeting (97% support).

- Everybody should pay at least a symbolic amount, but persons from developing countries should pay much less (only 9% favored equal payments for attendees from developing countries).

- SCB should invest in projects like restoration of natural landscapes that directly benefit biodiversity in addition to reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, even if these tons of carbon cost more (84% support). "

 

 

Just imagine how much carbon the USAF emits in a day....

[HydrogenBond]

Carbon emission trading is a loophole that allows one to leave a big carbon footprint yet create the illusion of a small one, i.e., buy the right to polute. It is sort of similar to what was done in the middle ages. For a price you could buy sin credits from the church, that allowed one to indulge their whims without it being counted as a sin. Those with money and power could now sin even more and get away with it.

 

Sin trading is a going to be a good con artist business. Promise to plant 1B trees over the next 20 years. Sell future emssion offset credits for the whole twenty years, go bankrupt and buy yourself an island. Using fake credits that one thought was real, one will think it is OK to good beyond what they did before (return on investment).

 

Another consideration is that although a person or company may buy credits and the net total for the globe may still fall, what about the local people living near them who can't afford credits. The locals get to see concentrated stink. If one is poor you much be painted green. If you are rich you can be green, brown or black, depending on how much one can afford to spend.

[freeztar]

I wouldn't call it a loophole, I'd call it a BABY step...

[Boerseun]

When driving through a toll booth, you'll notice that trucks pay at a higher rate than cars and motorbikes. The reasoning behind this, of course, is that those using the road should pay equivalent to the damage they cause to the road.

 

Same with the Carbon Market. We only have one atmosphere, shared across borders and nations. It's our "Commons". Those in Germany polluting the commons I share with them, should pay for the "maintenance and upkeep" of the commons in ratio of their pollution.

 

Companies planting trees and doing things that are beneficial to the "commons" get discounts, and get to sell their carbon credits. They are "maintaining" the Commons. Those that are polluting, are "damaging" the commons, like the truck/car example above.

 

Surely, the prices haven't been set correctly yet, but it's a dynamic thing and will be amended and fine-tuned as time goes on. It sure as hell is better than nothing at all, and by turning environmental responsibility into a tradeable asset is so beautifully capitalistic and in perfect harmony and synch with Corporate culture that I can only wonder why we haven't thought of this ages ago. Using the Profit Motive to get companies to clean up their act is possibly the only viable approach in our modern materialistic world. This is of course not to say there isn't room for improvement, but like I said, it's a dynamic mechanism and will be fine-tuned over time.

[Cedars]

I have to agree with the assessment of the news article. Carbon trading wont change a thing. And you cannot blame the corps alone. Look at the increase in the sales of SUVs in the USA up until the gas prices went up to nearly $3 a gallon and held there for a while.

 

Look to the energy corps reactions as they lobbied the Bush admin to roll back the "new source review" requirements for energy plants. Grandparented in as the Clean Air/Water acts became law, these corps did not take the initiative to invest in cleaner power plants. Nursing along the older plants, squeezing every drop of energy out while not seeing the future they are now up against having to invest in these dilapidated structures under the rules in place that allowed them the luxury of continued operations.

 

Carbon trading opens too many doors of manipulation to avoid the cost to do business. Its not an answer, its an excuse wrapped in governmental stamp of approval.

[C1ay]

IMO, carbon trading will cause more pollution since it allows countries to expand their limits on pollution by using some other countries unused allowance....

[pgrmdave]

I think that carbon trading needs to be tweaked, but I think that setting it up as a market is a good thing. If a group wants less pollution, they can always simply buy carbon and sit on it. If enough people do that so that the price of the carbon goes up, selling it and using the profits to fund cleanups is an option. I think that it is long overdue, and it provides good incentive for businesses to pay for their own pollution.

[HydrogenBond]

We are all working under the assumption that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. Obviously, the fact that warming has occurred in the past lends some doubt to this assumption. The same can be said about the warming that is currently going on, on Mars. I tend to believe the global warming scare is the ends justifying the means.

 

The environmentalists are part responsible for this pickle. If nuke power had been developed and had evolved from the 1960's to now, the Carbon levels would currently be much lower. The excess power would be used to make hydrogen gas for clean burning auto fuel, etc., making the middle east less stretegic and volatile. This is another one of those boon doggles that will create another set of problem for the future, under the guise short sighted altruism.

[Zythryn]

We are all working under the assumption that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. Obviously, the fact that warming has occurred in the past lends some doubt to this assumption.

 

Do you also doubt man is responsible for some forest fires since they happened before we were around?

 

The same can be said about the warming that is currently going on, on Mars. I tend to believe the global warming scare is the ends justifying the means.

 

My understanding is that this observation is based on three photograps of the southern pole region of Mars. In comparison, earth bound measurements have been made using photographs, thermometers, proxy (tree rights, ice cores, etc). These have lead to the conclusion that the earth is currently undergoing a global temperature change.

So, which one can give us a better/more reliable picture of it's respective global temperature?

 

The environmentalists are part responsible for this pickle.

 

I whole-heartedly agree.

 

If nuke power had been developed and had evolved from the 1960's to now, the Carbon levels would currently be much lower.

 

Somewhat lower to be certain, maybe much lower depending upon how many coal plants nuclear displaced.

 

The excess power would be used to make hydrogen gas for clean burning auto fuel, etc., making the middle east less stretegic and volatile...

 

I would love to see what information you based this upon:)

I think our auto fuel infrastructure would not be any different than it is today regardless of the amount of power we have available. The infrastructure is more 'entrenched', in my opinion, in politics. It is less reliant on available energy from power plants (again, in my opinion).

 

France has a large percentage of nuclear power, does it have a lot of hydrogen powered cars?

[HydrogenBond]

Nuke power plants are most efficient at full power. When consumption is low, and they need to power down, this is done using materials that absorb the excess radiation (not used for power) lowering efficiency. A better strategy would be to always run at full power, and divert the excess output, during off peak, to make hydrogen gas.

 

When nuke power first emerged it was very competitive. The environmentalists, used doom and gloom, like they still do today, to make the entire process political and therefore long winded. The strategy was to set up too many obstables that nuke power would lose competitive advantage. That strategy was successful, leading to more dependance on oil, gas and coal to meet the ever increasing electric demands. The result is more CO2 emissions than would have occurred in a less gullable world. Now the same jokers are blaming the situation they helped create, with their misguided compassion, on everyone but themselves.

[Zythryn]

Nuke power plants are most efficient at full power. When consumption is low, and they need to power down, this is done using materials that absorb the excess radiation (not used for power) lowering efficiency. A better strategy would be to always run at full power, and divert the excess output, during off peak, to make hydrogen gas.

 

I agree with that. However, why do you think that actually would happen? Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it will overturn the oil business world. We currently HAVE some nuclear plants, do we use those few to produce any Hydrogen?

 

When nuke power first emerged it was very competitive. The environmentalists, used doom and gloom, like they still do today, to make the entire process political and therefore long winded. The strategy was to set up too many obstables that nuke power would lose competitive advantage. That strategy was successful, leading to more dependance on oil, gas and coal to meet the ever increasing electric demands. The result is more CO2 emissions than would have occurred in a less gullable world. Now the same jokers are blaming the situation they helped create, with their misguided compassion, on everyone but themselves.

 

Why use such a broad brush? I count myself an enviornmentalist, and was very pro-nuclear power (still am). I know of many others that also feel the same way. Know, there are some that don't, but I don't think you can pidgeon-hole everyone that cares about the enviornment as these jokers you mention.

[Michaelangelica]

Nuke power plants are most efficient at full power. When consumption is low, and they need to power down, this is done using materials that absorb the excess radiation (not used for power) lowering efficiency. A better strategy would be to always run at full power, and divert the excess output, during off peak, to make hydrogen gas.

.

or de-salinate water at night?

They have to have access to (sea?) water for cooling anyway.

 

"Pebble bed" technology looks like solving the melt-down problem. (One pebble bed reactor looks like being built in China in a few years.

There was a report on "Catalyst" (?) about it last week).

 

Thorium as a fuel stops the arm race problem and can actually use up plutonium.

 

Then you are only left with the waste problem (Which is much less with Thorium anyway)

 

"Dr. Karl's" reaction to coal power stations

In his book "Sensational Moments in Science", ABC Press, 2001.

He has an interesting take on coal power:-

 

"In 1982, some 111 (US)nuclear-fired power plants consumed about 540 tonnes of nuclear fuel.

In the same year, coal-fired power plants released over 800 tonnes of uranium." into the atmosphere.

"If a single nuclear-fired plant released 8K of uranium into the bio-sphere. there would be . .an enormous outcry."

 

He says the nuclear content of coal has not yet reached general public awareness in the same way that the greenhouse effect AIDs, or the ozone hole have.

There are no nuclear regulations about the disposal of coal ash

 

Coal apparently contains a heap of uranium and thorium

He concludes that you will get three times more radiation from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear fueled power plant!

That's if you include the complete nuclear fuel cycle mining, processing operating, disposal(!?)

If you don't include these your average coal-fired power plant puts out 100 times more radiation than a nuclear-fired plant.

p103-104

 

I wonder how much radioactive junk is floating about from coal?

 

Where are the men in white coats running about the countryside protecting our food chain and health?

[maikeru]

Carbon emissions trading as it's currently implemented doesn't seem to work so well. It's better than allowing countries and industries to freely pollute as they will, but I think the mindset of how carbon is treated and viewed must also change. In nature, many "waste" products in of themselves are valuable resources, which flow in continuous nutrient and elemental cycles. I have a problem with the mindset that treats CO2 as akin to toxic or hazardous waste. It's a rare approach like terra preta, which views carbon not as a toxic waste product but as a valuable resource, that changes the current paradigm entirely.