Man-made climate change is done for. Dead.

[Winston001]

Ok, so if CO2 is such a bastard, why are we cutting down all the trees? Wouldn't you think a CO2 - O2 absorbing organism would be given "protection" by the powers that be? If CO2 is such a bad thing, plant more fuckin trees... not problem solved, but surely a start?

Good man!! Someone who sees the other side of carbon trading.

There isn't a vast bank somewhere owned by evil greedy traders for money from the sale of carbon credits. The money goes to people who take carbon out of the atmosphere............like forestry!

So yes, if you want to make $ plant some trees. That's what the whole deal with Iwi is about.

Another example is Christchurch City Council. A few years ago they developed a way of capturing and using methane from their landfill (or sewage ponds). That resulted in carbon tonnage allocated to CCC which the Council then sold to a Dutch industry in Holland. Money in for the ratepayers and a useable product from waste.

[James Deuce]

And the Dutch industry continued polluting at the same or incrementally increasing rates.

[Jantar]

...Another example is Christchurch City Council. A few years ago they developed a way of capturing and using methane from their landfill (or sewage ponds). That resulted in carbon tonnage allocated to CCC which the Council then sold to a Dutch industry in Holland. Money in for the ratepayers and a useable product from waste.

Yes, I have never understood the logic here, so maybe you can explain it to me. They capture the methane and burn it to produce electricity and in the process they discharge CO2. So how does that result in a carbon credit?

I plant 200 walnut trees and 30 assorted other trees on 3 acres , but don't qualify for any carbon credits, because the trees are decidious.

I would love to hear an explanation of why a corporate body like a council gets carbon credits for discharging carbon into the atmosphere, but a private citizen who plants trees doesn't qualify.

[Quasievil]

There isn't a vast bank somewhere owned by evil greedy traders for money from the sale of carbon credits.

Youre shitting me right, yes there is, there is a whole industry built around it skimming the cash

[James Deuce]

Youre shitting me right, yes there is, there is a whole industry built around it skimming the cash

Indeed. The Copenhagen meeting is about setting up an organisation to deal with the cash.

[peasea]

Indeed. The Copenhagen meeting is about setting up an organisation to deal with the cash.

Maybe I could forward them my account details?

[James Deuce]

Mine too please.

[rainman]

1/ the day you can tell me how it is that increasing the taxes the Mum and Dads pay under this ETS scam is going to save the planet is the day I will convert.........this is my main issue with it.

This ETS scam won't save the planet.

2/ The Day you can tell me how it is that Taxes like this can become legislated while the science is NOT proven will again have me converted

I'd suggest the science won't ever be proven to your satisfaction. But taxes don't need scientific justification anyway.

3/ If in ten or even 20 years time you can tell me that the Climate change (which is natural) has been rectified due to this ETS scam and Taxes is the day I will buy you a new Ducati

This ETS scam won't rectify climate change, natural or not. That was easy!

Bold claim there that climate change is natural - I assume you mean it's all natural, and that human activities have no influence on the climate at all (so we'd in in essentially the same position even if all humans had been spirited off the earth say 500 years ago, no consequences for burning all of that fossil carbon at all). Feel free to back that up if you wish.

[James Deuce]

Gaahh. Human activities are natural.

[Grahameeboy]

It's the sun that causes climate change..not our emmisions....it's about decreased sun spots which they reckon will start cooling earth by 2012-2015....

Do we really believe that what we have created is greater than the influence of the Sun

[rainman]

Gaahh. Human activities are natural.

Semantics. Do I really need to define what I'm sure you understand me to mean?

[James Deuce]

No, because an organism going about its business is natural. Local ecosystems crumble in the face of imbalance, why shouldn't the global one hiccough as a result?

It's the desire to paint humans as "the bad guys" that is going to make life really miserable for a lot of people who simply don't deserve it. We need to adapt to change, not resist it, and we need to do it in ways that improve the existence of the bulk of the world's population.

The present fixation on sequestering money under the auspices of "saving the planet", supposedly for "third world" countries to fix their ongoing ecological issues, is just going to create a vast pool of virtual money that will allow the worst polluters to keep polluting, but even that's still within the scope of an organism going about its business.

Darwin's paraphrasing of Spencer is always misrepresented as the strong eating the weak for gain. His interpretation was more along the lines of the organism best adapted for its local environment finds survival easier than its competitors. The last 300 years have seen "local" come to mean "global" and the best adapted are those with the most money. Global war has been rendered futile by the swirling and violent vortex of global economics. A country with greater foresight than just the next electoral cycle can render an opponent encumbered with democracy impotent over time by nicking all their money. China was never going to be stupid enough to challenge the US militarily, but look at what's happened. The US is struggling for manpower and money to persecute a war that they will lose, in place that has consistently sucked the wealth out of countries and empires who have attempted control the territory.

China is suddenly the best adapted player on the world stage. They'll use emissions trading to suck the lifeblood out of Western Industrial culture.

[rainman]

Do we really believe that what we have created is greater than the influence of the Sun

That's very curious logic.

Imagine 1 sq m of desert on a sunny day. Death Valley for example. Plenty hot. Pretty impressive work on the part of Ra, they might have said a while back. But we know it's because of the awesome power of the sun, even if it is all that way away. Wow, big powerful fusion-reacting sun!

Now detonate a nuke a few hundred metres above that square. The nuke is very powerful, but not as powerful as the sun, not even close. We can't even imagine creating anything nearly as influential as the sun.

Still sucks to be in the desert that day, if you happen to be within the blast radius.

[rainman]

No, because an organism going about its business is natural.

Language (English in particular) is a confusing and approximate tool. Yes, an organism going about it's business is natural, at least at the extreme range of meanings given to that word. But "natural" often associates with "good" in many minds (cf. natural remedies vs synth chem treatments), so your point sounds a lot "it's all good, no need to change". Which, I'd suggest, would be an irresponsible and unproductive stance.

A better example: modern chemical monocultural agriculture can't in the historical sense be considered "natural", whereas something like permaculture is a lot more so. A world where permaculture was the dominant food production system would be quite different to the present one - and would have pluses and minuses to debate. By your definition above, both are perfectly natural, nothing to see, move along.

No broad disagreement with the rest of your post.

China is suddenly the best adapted player on the world stage. They'll use emissions trading to suck the lifeblood out of Western Industrial culture.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Grahameeboy]

That's very curious logic.

Imagine 1 sq m of desert on a sunny day. Death Valley for example. Plenty hot. Pretty impressive work on the part of Ra, they might have said a while back. But we know it's because of the awesome power of the sun, even if it is all that way away. Wow, big powerful fusion-reacting sun!

Now detonate a nuke a few hundred metres above that square. The nuke is very powerful, but not as powerful as the sun, not even close. We can't even imagine creating anything nearly as influential as the sun.

Still sucks to be in the desert that day, if you happen to be within the blast radius.

You know my logic......