Carbon credits

[alexander]

So you are suggesting that we increase the [ce]{CO2}[/ce] level in the atmosphere by say 5% and see if polar ice caps melt? Seriously you can't perform those types of experiments on a global scale. Why? there are too many factors that affect the climate, and you cant shut down global production, and somehow encapsulate everything that produces this gas, also 5% more carbon in the atmosphere will kill off another couple of thousand species of animals, and this to my knowledge is the only planet we've been able to live on so far, so how about we drop the global experiment crap and stick with what we know.

 

It's kind of like proposing an experiment to determine if your house temperature will increase if you set the downstairs couch on fire, I think we can all agree that if you ignite a sufficiently big fire in your house, your house temperature will increase... hell your house will burn down... Now as ridiculous as that sounds that is the level of an experiment you are saying would be needed to determine if indeed a big fire will increase the overall temperature of your house, because from what you are saying, especially Brian, we have no idea how the dynamics of the gas that fill in your house would be affected by a large exothermic event. It's the same thing with the environment, we can clearly see the dramatic increase in temperature rise since the industrial revolution, we can see the temperatures rising overall, you can't ignore statistics. We can simulate most dynamics of the planet by building a sort of a planetary model, and we can see how different properties of the atmosphere will affect a planet like ours.

 

So tired of people approaching this whole thing with "oh well i dont feel any warmer" point of view, it's selfish and egocentric, closing your eyes on a problem does not constitute problem's nonexistence! There is no need to design a global experiment to upset an already upset system even more, and possibly cause a global cataclysm bringing most of our existence to an end. IMHO

[BrianG]

... 5% more carbon in the atmosphere will kill off another couple of thousand species of animals, and this to my knowledge is the only planet we've been able to live on so far, so how about we drop the global experiment crap and stick with what we know...

 

If [ce]CO2[/ce] current levels are 386 CO2 Now - CO2 Home and 5% more brings it to 406ppmv, can you provide any evidence for your claim that "another couple thousand species of animals" will be killed off? What do you mean, another? Are there any animal species dead because we have 386ppmv [ce]CO2[/ce] now?

[alexander]

Hard to say, because we really didn't get to study 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived, and we hardly really know anything about the current day species that are on the brink or extinction, partly due to us expanding our habbitat, partly because people like brian like to hunt for fun, and partly because certain interference from religious organizations and lack of funding, education, and scientists who study such things. It's really hard to say whether any died as a direct impact of increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but the probability of that is quite high. There is evidence of many more then a "normal" amount of species dying off during previous such cataclysmic events, but no solid statistical or observational data as it was far before we had time to evolve. Now as far as indirect impacts go, there are theories that speculate on a large part of the dinosaur population dying during a cataclysmic event that raised the CO2 levels in the atmosphere quite significantly. The indirect deaths are even more likely, because we know that as we increase the amount of CO2 that a plant is exposed to (say significantly and at once), the plant will grow bigger, and more lush, but will be both discolored and have a lot less nutritional value, that's just simple plant science. The plant will also be less healthy.

 

Now some simple logic. Knowing that a lot of the 20000-30000 species that die off every year die primarily due to dwindling habitat, and keeping in mind that a lot of those species feed on plant life, we can quite definitively extrapolate that the statistics will show that more species will die off if a cataclysmic event, such as an experiment that raises the world CO2 levels by 5% that would decrease the nutritional value of food of most of the dwindling species, in already dwindling habitats, making food, while more accessible, a lot less nutritional, would cause more deaths of animals that depend on that food, due to inability and lowered nutritional value of such food, during the time just after the massive CO2 emission, and before the time when plants would have time to adjust to those levels. It is also not unlikely that some plants will also die off as a result of such an event.

[BrianG]

...because people like brian like to hunt for fun...

 

That's a string of claims without a single citation, the quote above is the most outrageous. Can you provide any justification?

 

I'll claim here, hunting for food and subsistence is OK. I've never claimed it's OK to hunt for fun, Alex's claim is false.

[alexander]

I didn't say that you hunt for fun, i said there are people with similar beliefs to you (like you) that hunt for fun, once again, please read more carefully. I really try not to offend anyone...

 

As far as citations, here are a couple of links to start you off:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/5/2473.full

[BrianG]

What kind of belief is that? A prejudice, a bias or an accusation? Perhaps a hope? Possibly everyone who is skeptical of carbon credits to mitigate climate change likes to hunt for fun? Denialists hunt for fun, is that supported?

 

Humans have hunted thousands of species to extinction, the dodo and mammoth. Man made CO2 has destroyed how many? What a whimsical science. Perhaps early denialists killed species just for playtime practice. We're getting far afield in this thread, because you don't write clearly.

 

...because people like brian like to hunt for fun...

 

I'm sorry if your offended, who would think there are people with similar beliefs to you (like you) that hunt for fun isn't offensive? False and offending, what could I have been thinking?

[alexander]

A prejudice, a bias or an accusation?

neither, stick to what i've said, and not to your feelings that seem to be based your assumptions of me and driven by those, wrong inerpretation of what i have actually said...

 

Brian, i am very much against carbon credits, I have stated so on multiple occasions, and i have a thread about it here: http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/14694-whole-green-factor.html#post215586

 

A thread to which you have replied and thus at least i am assuming you have actually read?

 

So this:

Possibly everyone who is skeptical of carbon credits to mitigate climate change likes to hunt for fun?

would apply to myself as well as you. You are totally blowing something very simply stated into something you just figured it meant because you think i'm some sort of a green hippie or something (Note: that does not say that i think you think of me as a green hippie).

 

Man made CO2 has destroyed how many?

Thats a damn good question, and i don't have an answer for it, nor does anyone, i think, really, at least not definitively... You should ask more of those, and focus less flame wars.

 

Before further confrontations, let me make some things clear (i get it, my thoughts are cryptic and you dont know me, so i should explain)

 

There is nothing wrong with hunting, it is wrong to hunt for fun, but it is wrong only in my opinion, you may agree that it's wrong, or you may not agree, but i have nothing against hunting as a process, we've had to do it for survival, we don't have to do it anymore, but it's not a bad skill to have.

 

You might not hunt only for fun, and i respect that, but usually, from personal experience and reading psychological profiles of marines (reference, sorry this one is not free, though i got to read it while i was waiting for one of my teachers back in school (it was on the desk, and he was running really late) a few years back: IngentaConnect Psychological Mood Profiles of Army, Marine Corps, and Special Op...) It is not hard to conclude that a large part of them would likely see nothing wrong with hunting for fun (trophy hunting) and are more likely then average people from the same sampled area, to do so.

 

So, point being, people not dissimilar to you, at least on some mentalities, have hunted some species to extinction, but nor were they dissimilar to me, and not all were hunted for fun, some were pests, some were food, don't take it personally, i told you i am the least offensive person, i might stab at people, but i never mean it in a bad way. I would probably contribute to hunting some species out of existence, if i lived in the same area, under the same conditions as the people who did...

[BrianG]

Alex, I was wrong. Thanks for your explanation.

[HydrogenBond]

If the fear is CO2, carbon credits are counterproductive since they cancel out the good, some people will do, by allowing others to pay, to put it back into the air. This implies that the slave segment of society, has to do the work, so the ruling class doesn't have to change anything. For a price, you can expand your CO2 output, just as long as the slaves work harder.

 

Let me give an analogy. Say we decided, we wanted culture to lose body fat, so we all can become healthier. One solution is to give out fat credits. This allows me to eat all I want, if I buy fat credits, and be numbered as part of this healthy culture. Culture can still lose an average of 5 pounds, even if I gain 25. But I need six people to lose 5 pounds, so I can be part of the national weight loss.

 

Say we were all on a boat, that was leaking, and about to sink. We all need to bail-out the boat and do our part, so we can stay afloat. Someone comes up with the idea of water credits. This allows me to nap and work on my tan, if I buy water credits. But I need to make sure others are willing to bail even harder, so I can slide. We have the slaves working harder so the slave master gets tanned.

 

In more practical terms of carbon credit implementation, say I decreased my CO2 output by changing my home heater. Do I get paid credits for the life of the heater, or just one lump sum at the beginning? The green credit benefit, to another might last the 30 years of the new furnace. Would I get paid over 30 years, or would I be conned to take a quickie lump sum?

 

Say after three years, I decide I don't wish to trade my heater's remaining 27 years of green credits. I now wish to use them for myself, to offset the additional lighting in my new addition. Can, I just take it back and sell it to myself? Or are there only certain people who will be allowed to back add CO2?

 

Say someone is hardly generating CO2, within their little solar home. Say we also have someone who generates 10 times that amount of CO2. Are these CO2 credits of the same value or is one worth more? The analogy is bailing the boat. The one with hardly any CO2 is bailing the fastest, with (CO2) water in his sector very very low. The other is bailing slower with the (CO2)water at his knees. Isn't the extra labor of the first more valuable? Or will it be set up so no matter whether you bail faster or hardly at all, we have the same green credit rate.

 

Say all the bailers of the boat decide, they are tired of working harder keeping their area at ankle level, and wish to take their green credits back for themselves and their kids. They let the water reach knee high. This could mean the slave master can't tan or the boat will sink. Will we use force to get the slaves back to work? Or will the slave master have to start bailing the boat to compensate for all the slaves? It depends on who you lobby.

 

If green credits went through, I would make sure not to take any lump sum for CO2 changes that will be resold for value for many years. I would lease the extended value credits, year to year (no longer term lease) to keep the option open, for taking the green credits for myself. I might need a bigger house. I would also expect more value per credit the more you bail. Those who are the closest to zero CO2, will be bailing with the most effort. This is not a union job. That beyond the call of duty should be rewarded, so expect top dollar and don't accept less.

[BrianG]

I believe if the goal is reducing CO2 emissions, a carbon tax would seem more efficient than carbon credits.

[jazztracss]

we need an idea like this to be enforced before it is to late

[erich]

Hi CarbonBond,

Hear..Hear, Ya Gotta get "PAID to BAIL"

 

The Clear Act was new to me, It follows Jim Hansen's TAX & DIVIDEND plan.

No dough the simplest scenario for accounting the carbon economy. Political pain is minimal due to direct dividends. One way or the other pain needs to be avoided, Cap & Trade did it for NOX & SOX, but that was a more discrete problem.

 

The one addition I would add is an application for an increased dividend, for more "Bailing", say on individual & corporate tax forms, based on if you or a company sequestered Carbon. ( Plus a bit more if done with char to soil to account for continuing Wee-Beastie Bailing )

 

If farmers won't be payed for "off sets", they certainly should be payed for sequestration.

 

Maria Cantwell - U.S. Senator from Washington State

 

I like this video , except the end, when they sorta disrespect the farmer getting "off set" $

YouTube - The CLEAR Act - An Explanation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i10hDOGeCvw&feature=player_embedded

[HydrogenBond]

Carbon credits demonstrates how demand can be driven by the illusions created by good marketing. BT Barnum said it best, there is a sucker born each minute.

 

The original argument used carbon credits to slow down or prevent global warming by controlling carbon emissions. But with global warming revealed to be supported with data fudging, what is the purpose now? It is like saying, we all need to scoop water from the pond to prevent flooding, at a time when it appeared the big flood was imminent. The flood never materializes, but through habit we still scoop water.

 

The entire effect, has to do with supply side economics, where supply side marketing create a new sense of demand. For example, the pet rock was supply side driven, since there was no initial clamor for pet rocks via the demand side. (it would be nice if there were pet rocks, so I wish someone would invent it). The pet rock demand was created using marketing, until enough marketing manipulation created a demand for pet rocks. Then the law of supply and demand means higher prices since the demand for pet rocks are high.

 

Here is the tactic that would make BT Barnum proud. The new pet rock we wish to sell is connected to carbon. We need to create a demand, with fear a simple motivator. Fear makes one irrational so the demand is half way there. Some people are ready to follow the fad and be out in the front. Liberals always so this. This will create fad demand until the supply side needs to raise prices due to supply and demand.

 

Let me see if I can make BT Barnum proud. I like the idea of salt credits. Salt is used on food, with many people having a high intake, leading to health problems. So what we should do is issue salt credits, which can be bought and sold on the free market. If someone ,who like salt, uses up all his credits, he can buy credits from others and still use a lot of salt. The governments want their cut of the scam, while the credit brokers and all the middlemen, should be paid too. Moving the salt in a circle to generate wealth and taxes is not how you improve health. But there is a sucker born each minute.

 

Instead of credits, how about reduction. This cuts out the middlemen. How can the governments get taxes when the goal is to lower the emissions. If they tax, there is less money to pay for the refit. Carbon credits provides the skim, so all the middlemen are able to get paid.

 

Maybe a compromise is to make this, like the pet rock; optional. Those who wish to buy and sell are welcome to do so. If you don't want a pet rock, that is your choice. This can still generate tax and profit, although much less.