Enjoying the Carbon Scam?

[ducatilover]

You only get monery for trees if they are new ones, and you lose money if you cut down old ones I think.

It seems like an ass backwards system which does an exceeding shit job of repairing the moral bankruptcy exhibited by some corporations.

I'm a greenie in that I think we need to maximise use of renewable resources, and minimse pollution, but there are enough reasons to do these things without having to scaremonger and tax the general public with this sort of bollocks.

I agree we need to clean up our act etc. I didn't understand the carbon credits though. Renewable resources should be utilised far more IMHO.

No. In simplistic terms ... If you pollute you can buy carbon credits from someone who has stopped polluting - or from someone who has planted trees to soak up the carbon ... if you can't buy credits then you have to stop polluting.

Overall it should reduce the amount of carbon produced into the atmosphere

Thanks, now I know the idea behind them.
So, if I stop polluting (Pretend I am a company that makes ugly black smoke, eg: Lucas Electrics) can I make a profit/make back the money invested in being greener, by selling said credits?
If so, it may be an incentive to become greener.

[Banditbandit]

For what it's worth, I don't think Quasi holds the opinions he does on global warming (comprehensively wrong as they are) because of his job.

I don't either .. but he had a dig at others for a biaised point of view - I had the opportunity to have a dig back ..

[Banditbandit]

I agree we need to clean up our act etc. I didn't understand the carbon credits though. Renewable resources should be utilised far more IMHO.


Thanks, now I know the idea behind them.
So, if I stop polluting (Pretend I am a company that makes ugly black smoke, eg: Lucas Electrics) can I make a profit/make back the money invested in being greener, by selling said credits?
If so, it may be an incentive to become greener.

Yes .. that's exactly the point .. more profit in being greener ...

[Quasievil]

You're proclaiming the scientific article in question as YET ANOTHER damning SCIENTIFIC FACT on the basis of a press release. Are you sure? Wouldn't it be a good idea to be just a wee bit sceptical?

Am I sure.........yes given the source Author and peers that reviewed it........... so Skeptical no
Did you have a counter peer reviewed scientific article I can read to balance it out if so I will read it.

[slowpoke]

, why should we take seriously the anti-climate change arguments of an oil comapny employee?

And aren't you one of the many who needs hydrocarbon products and all their many derivatives? Best you stay out of this debate too until you're able to argue from a more sustainable position.

[Banditbandit]

And aren't you one of the many who needs hydrocarbon products and all their many derivatives? Best you stay out of this debate too until you're able to argue from a more sustainable position.

Don't we all? If you apply that criteria then there is no-one to take part in the debate ... except maybe a few tribesman in the Amazon jungles .. and I'll bet I know which side of the argument they fall on ..

And I think you need to learn the distinction between arguing a point of view and having a dig at Quasi ... the former is boring the latter is at least amusing

[Badjelly]

Did you have a counter peer reviewed scientific article I can read to balance it out if so I will read it.

It's going to take a while for the responses to Dr Spencer's article to be peer reviewed themselves. In the meantime you could read this

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ture-feedback/

The fundamental problem is that you can't say anything about the climate sensitivity to external radiative forcing by measuring the changes in radiative balance associated with internally generated fluctuations (basically ENSO).

Oh, and by the way, I don't share your opinion about the quality of the author's previous work. He has recently occupied his time with exploring simple models of the climate and has done a dreadful job of it. See:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/...odel-down-roy/

Just the sort of thing that climate sceptics would come down on like a ton of bricks, if it gave answers they didn't want to hear.

[avgas]

So what is it achieving? Why the need to charge money and who has the rights to sell "carbon credits" Can I have some for my trees?
Someone is profiting from this, to think otherwise would be silly.

Well if your big enough you can buy directly from the govt here : http://www.eur.govt.nz/

Otherwise if your a "small trader" you could always go through these guys:
http://www.carbonconsciousnz.co.nz/
http://www.carbonmarketsolutions.com/
I hear they also do Forex and other things.......so you could do all in one.

As for claiming credits - your trees:
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emi...ry/allocation/
But I know somewhere it says something about trunk diameter being a minimum 50cm diameter. So if your trees are smaller than that forget about it.

As for the comment about people scamming it - I have laid out enough information in this thread that anyone could scam it if they felt like it. I also know of many large industries in NZ scamming it by decreasing their credits. Some very inventive ways too, such as carbon doping water. Because water is not covered by ETS.
Mums the word though

[ducatilover]

Well if your big enough you can buy directly from the govt here : http://www.eur.govt.nz/

Otherwise if your a "small trader" you could always go through these guys:
http://www.carbonconsciousnz.co.nz/
http://www.carbonmarketsolutions.com/
I hear they also do Forex and other things.......so you could do all in one.

As for claiming credits - your trees:
http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emi...ry/allocation/
But I know somewhere it says something about trunk diameter being a minimum 50cm diameter. So if your trees are smaller than that forget about it.

As for the comment about people scamming it - I have laid out enough information in this thread that anyone could scam it if they felt like it. I also know of many large industries in NZ scamming it by decreasing their credits. Some very inventive ways too, such as carbon doping water. Because water is not covered by ETS.
Mums the word though

Choice, I'm off to scam the fuck out of some carbon.

[Winston001]

So, if I stop polluting (Pretend I am a company that makes ugly black smoke, eg: Lucas Electrics) can I make a profit/make back the money invested in being greener, by selling said credits?
If so, it may be an incentive to become greener.

Yes.

Christchurch City Council does exactly that. Methane from the Burnside landfill is captured instead of going into the atmosphere. That creates carbon credits for CCC which sells them to British Gas for $1 million per year.

Even better, CCC then burn the methane to heat the QE II pool complex.

[Winston001]

I'm a greenie in that I think we need to maximise use of renewable resources, and minimse pollution, but there are enough reasons to do these things without having to scaremonger and tax the general public with this sort of bollocks.

Unfortunately not. If you were BP/Mobil/Shell etc why would you discourage consumers from using fossil fuel?

If the price of that fuel goes up because the supplier has to buy carbon credits, alternative energy becomes more economic.

People do not change their behaviour just because they are told they should. We'd all have stopped smoking 25 years ago if we behaved rationally.

[Scuba_Steve]

Hey for anyone who believes this carbon credit scam to be a good idea, I have some of the cheapest carbon credits for sale 100$ will get you 1000 credits.
Now while these credits aren't "brand-name" credits, they are just as good & work exactly the same as any other carbon credits on the market just at a much lower price. You give me money & in return I'll give you a worthless piece of paper.
Buy now & I'll give you a 2nd set of credits for free thats 2000 carbon credits for only 100$

[Scuba_Steve]

Unfortunately not. If you were BP/Shell etc why would you discourage consumers from using fossil fuel?

they aren't they're driving up profits with this "climate change" scam

[oneofsix]

Unfortunately not. If you were BP/Mobil/Shell etc why would you discourage consumers from using fossil fuel?

If the price of that fuel goes up because the supplier has to buy carbon credits, alternative energy becomes more economic.

People do not change their behaviour just because they are told they should. We'd all have stopped smoking 25 years ago if we behaved rationally.

The price of crude goes up due to war in the middle east etc, the price at the pump goes up, profit for BP and Shell et al goes up. Carbon credit forces their costs up, they will make more profit, partly due to the carbon scaremongers and their scam. They are also big investigators of alternative so if the price of fossil goes up they get grants to continue the investigations they were doing anyhow and their profits still go up. they are on a win win, the only one to lose here are us and the planet, oh sorry you still believe reducing carbon emissions is going to reduce pollution don't you

[SPman]

Correct, but as I've said already Quasi is a VERY straight up bloke. He doesn't benefit at all from this stuff, he just has a job there.

That's the damn trouble - he is a straight up bloke - I'd consider him under informed on greater world events (which in some ways would be a great thing, there is so much shite going on out there, but, if you're not talking politics from a different viewpoint, he's as good as they come!
Now, back to the shit fight...

at a current total human contribution of 1.7% towards the total Carbon Dioxide emissions on the planet they wont be able to.............aint that convenient.

and where do those figures come from?
....the sum total of all actively out gassing volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate that is about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.