[N_Fiddledog]

Carbon offsets don't work. They didn't work under government controlled plans of the European Progressive socialists.

They didn't work on a voluntary basis at the Chicago Climate Exchange.

In both cases the value of the offsets tanked. There was also the problem of rampant fraud.

The Eu still has a plan of some sort. Good luck with that EU.

Government controlled offset strategies did have success limiting CFCs during the Ozone depletion scare.

But CFC's are synthetic. They were introduced into the environment through things like refrigerants. There were replacements for them.

Carbon offsets are trying to replace the gas we exhale with an invented currency.

CO2 is necessary for existence of life on earth. At present civilization depends on the fossil fuels that cause CO2 emissions. Currently there is no economically viable replacement.

CFC offsets and Carbon offsets are not the same thing.

[Lemmy]

In general, emissions trading has worked better with water pollution than air pollution. In general, they work better on small, localized scales. Success or failure seems to depend on the set up of the system. If the system is well conceived, it can work. Where it's failed, it's failed as a matter of design, not principle.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

In general, emissions trading has worked better with water pollution than air pollution. In general, they work better on small, localized scales. Success or failure seems to depend on the set up of the system. If the system is well conceived, it can work. Where it's failed, it's failed as a matter of design, not principle.

There has been successes when the attempt was to manage toxic, synthetic, pollutants that could be replaced or discarded without disrupting the world economy. The sheer scale of CO2 management makes offset strategies unlikely to succeed and too easy to exploit with fraud.

And again carbon offset programs have not proven themselves successful.

[andyt]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

andyt andyt:

If Canada has to buy foreign ghg credits to offset the oilsands, who pays for that?

Green house gas credits is a fucking shell game that does nothing about emissions but does transfer money. I can see why Andy thinks it's a good plan.

go ahead, liar, quote where I said it was a good plan.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Yep, once again Canada gets to be the whipping boy. China is the world's largest producer of GHGs but apparently they get a by because they are an "emerging/developing" economy. Ya know, despite the fact China has had the world's second largest economy since 1850. Germany is already ramping up it's lignite production to increase generation from coal-fired plants, while the US is going for broke cranking up oil production and attempting to suck up all the natgas they can in as short a period as they can in an effort to reach energy independence. California's tar oil is pretty much just as carbon intensive as our oil sands.

The crap about Canada becoming an environmental pariah is just another jejune attempt at bullshit scare tactics.

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

andyt andyt:

If Canada has to buy foreign ghg credits to offset the oilsands, who pays for that?

Green house gas credits is a fucking shell game that does nothing about emissions but does transfer money. I can see why Andy thinks it's a good plan.

go ahead, liar, quote where I said it was a good plan.

Fuck you troll. You're always pro money redistribution so this is right up your alley. Pretending you're upset at me for pointing it out is typical of you when the the reality is you sitting in your hovel jerking yourself silly over the thought that maybe you'll get a nickel or two thrown your way.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Yeah, real world experience trumped by a course.

No, there are plenty of real world case examples where emissions trading has worked. CFCs, the Fox River pollution in Wisconsin, to name two off the top of my head. Generally speaking, they work well when they're set up properly. So to dismiss them out of hand, as you have, displays ignorance of the numerous examples, real world examples, where the schemes have worked effectively.

It doesn't work. Especially in a place like Canada.

Climate is a global. Having Canada, a minor player in the World get involved in these schemes is useless on the grand scale.

It takes China 2.5 hours to cancel out all of the B.C. carbon tax’s projected emissions savings in 2020.

[DrCaleb]

Lemmy Lemmy:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Yeah, real world experience trumped by a course.

No, there are plenty of real world case examples where emissions trading has worked. CFCs, the Fox River pollution in Wisconsin, to name two off the top of my head. Generally speaking, they work well when they're set up properly. So to dismiss them out of hand, as you have, displays ignorance of the numerous examples, real world examples, where the schemes have worked effectively.

Wasn't Acid Rain also successfully reduced through emissions trading?

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

It doesn't work. Especially in a place like Canada.

Climate is a global. Having Canada, a minor player in the World get involved in these schemes is useless on the grand scale.

It takes China 2.5 hours to cancel out all of the B.C. carbon tax’s projected emissions savings in 2020.

But it DOES work. We know it works because there are hundreds of cases where emissions permit trading HAS worked.

You're right, however, in the sense that the bigger the problem, the harder it is to set up a program that will work. For a carbon emissions permit scheme to really work, it would need global commitment. But someone has to be a leader. China and other developing countries will NEVER get on board without leadership from Western countries. "Why should we cut emissions when China isn't?" is defeatist.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Wasn't Acid Rain also successfully reduced through emissions trading?

yep

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But it DOES work. We know it works because there are hundreds of cases where emissions permit trading HAS worked.

You're right, however, in the sense that the bigger the problem, the harder it is to set up a program that will work. For a carbon emissions permit scheme to really work, it would needed global commitment. But someone has to be a leader. China and other developing countries will NEVER get on board without leadership from Western countries. "Why should we cut emissions when China isn't" is defeatist.

In case you haven't noticed, the World's biggest polluters don't give a shit what Canada does.

Cutting our emissions is a "feel good" proposition...it makes us feel warm and fuzzy but in the grand scale of world climate change, it does nothing.

[Lemmy]

I don't disagree with you. It is frustrating. But even token attempts at addressing climate change are better than doing nothing. Research. Trial and error. Leadership. Advocacy. That's how big problems get solved.

[Zipperfish]

It's hard not to be defeatist about climate change. You just shake your head at how stupid we are as a species.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

the fact China has had the world's second largest economy since 1850.

Now that's a new one on me. Have you got a link for that? (Not a Fiddle type link, either)

[Zipperfish]

I should start an owl skeptic site. Owls: Whaddup Widddat? Just, you know, interviews and guest blogs by other skeptics who are getting a little bit fed up with the so-called consensus that there are owls.

[ShepherdsDog]

Who?