[N_Fiddledog]

Here's why offset schemes can work with something like CFCs, but never have and never will with CO2.

CFCs were synthetic. They could be replaced and the function of say refrigeration would remain economically viable by using the replacement to the chemical. So when government demanded manufacturers buy offsets for the use of CFCs it was easier and made better business sense for them just to use something other than the CFC.

With CO2, it's a natural occurring substance that's woven into fossil fuels in a way it can't be separated and discarded in an economic fashion. The economy of the world runs on fossil fuels so you can't stop using the one without damaging the other. There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels at the present time so you can't just replace naturally occurring GHG emissions like you could with the synthetic CFCs.

With fossil fuels if you demand increased payment for offsets producers will simply pass the added cost on to consumers rather than find a replacement for the chemical like they did with CFCs.

When Carbon offsets were used in Europe, energy prices skyrocketed and emissions actually increased.

[andyt]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

With CO2, it's a natural occurring substance that's woven into fossil fuels in a way it can't be separated and discarded in an economic fashion. The economy of the world runs on fossil fuels so you can't stop using the one without damaging the other. There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels at the present time so you can't just replace naturally occurring GHG emissions like you could with the synthetic CFCs.

With fossil fuels if you demand increased payment for offsets producers will simply pass the added cost on to consumers rather than find a replacement for the chemical like they did with CFCs.

When Carbon offsets were used in Europe, energy prices skyrocketed and emissions actually increased.

As you increase the price of fossil fuels, consumption will drop. And other non GHG producing sources of energy will become relatively more affordable, which spurs research and development of those sources. We saw it happening before the oil price collapsed. And govt can do its piece by taking away tax breaks for GHG producers and giving them to renewable producers instead.

But of course there's problems, no matter what the scheme to reduce GHGs. If any country tries to do it alone, it's just the loser while other countries benefit. This was pointed out for BC austerity in the 1980's, because the rest of the world wasn't in sync. And even if the world all did climb on board, to try to reduce ghg emissions to drastically would spiral us into depression and kill a lot of people.

Still, you can lead instead of follow. BC did it, and the world didn't end. Start small, but at least start. But I admit I'm pessimistic. I doubt the global will exists to really make a difference, and we've probably already reached the point of no return - too many people on the planet, so either many die because of AGW or many die because we so drastically reduced our ghg production to actually make a diff. And more people born every day.

And there's a topic i posted where countries like Canada will be the global warming victors, while billions in the rest of the world are the losers. Those losers are going to make the influx of people into Europe look like nothing. NO way we can stop that many desperate people all trying to flood in here, especially if they are organized at all.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

As you increase the price of fossil fuels, consumption will drop. And other non GHG producing sources of energy will become relatively more affordable, which spurs research and development of those sources.

So are you saying then that the real purpose of carbon offset programs would be simply to increase the price of energy (and by extension everything)?

With that you may be correct. How helpful that might be is questionable.

[Thanos]

Lemmy 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

China's moving towards elimination of coal-fired power plants which is going to radically reduce it's overall emissions and other air pollutions.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/0 ... use-drops/

Give it enough time and the Chinese will be farther ahead on this issue than anyone in North America is. Mostly because, as bad as other parts of their system is, they haven't made a kooky sound-bite religion out of science denial.

[andyt]

I'd much rather see carbon taxes than offsets. Offsets are too vulnerable to scams, we're seeing it in BC, we've seen it worldwide. We have people in BC buying productive farmland and wanting to grow trees on it for the offsets. BC has little arable land, but tons of land that can grow trees - this is just an insane scheme, and shows what happens with offsets. Many offsets are projects that would have gone ahead anyway, so there's no actual carbon reduction. Maybe if we reforest the Sahara it would make a difference at the rate we're putting out carbon and deforesting land.

Tax carbon, start small and keep increasing it. Use at least some of this money to develop renewables. In BC we should be putting money into geothermal, maybe tidal.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

I'd much rather see carbon taxes than offsets. Offsets are too vulnerable to scams, we're seeing it in BC, we've seen it worldwide. We have people in BC buying productive farmland and wanting to grow trees on it for the offsets. BC has little arable land, but tons of land that can grow trees - this is just an insane scheme, and shows what happens with offsets.

Did you know they almost drove the Orangutans to extinction by tearing down the rainforest to grow palm oil trees to sell for Kyoto offsets?

[andyt]

No, but it sounds about right. That's the problem with Lemmy's claim that offsets work - he's not looking far enough down the road to see if the offsets are truly offsetting the carbon output and not causing other problems. Basically offsets sound like indulgences to me. Carbon pricing is hard to cheat and is effective if applied properly. forinstance in BC, we don't carbon tax coal that we ship to China - how nuts is that? The LNG we would export would also be exempt.

[martin14]

Thanos Thanos:

China's moving towards elimination of coal-fired power plants which is going to radically reduce it's overall emissions and other air pollutions.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/0 ... use-drops/

umm.. no.

They are looking to CAP coal plants in 2020, but let's not forget they are currently
building new ones every week.

Then, they will try to reduce coal down from currently producing 75% of their electricity
to a lower percentage.

They still produce 30% of global emissions, more than the US, and now more than the EU.




But we need to raise taxes and stunt our economic growth to "save the environment".

Another large crock of bullshit, you could take Canada off the map tomorrow,
no one would notice.

[N_Fiddledog]

Also, I didn't read the Think Progress thing, cause you know...it's Think Progress, but I imagine they were quoting some report from some greeniac propagandist organization saying the Chinese were going to replace coal with wind farms and fairy dust, or something like that.

China may very well start to replace coal soon and it should decrease emissions, but it will be more like this:

$1:

A monumental shift from coal to natural gas is achievable and necessary

2015 will be particularly critical for the natural gas sector. China is home to the largest shale gas reserves in the world and the government’s plans to cap coal consumption on the way to eventually stalling CO2 emissions growth by 2030 rely heavily on cleaner natural gas challenging coal’s dominance. The State Council recently set forth a target for natural gas to comprise over 10 percent of the country’s primary energy consumption by 2020. From its current share of 6 percent, the industry has a long way to go, made more difficult by the recent drop in oil prices, which has forced state-owned enterprises such as Sinopec to sell unprofitable liquefied natural gas import contracts.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/02/can-natu ... for-china/

$1:

Over the last five years, gas consumption, production, and imports in China have grown dramatically, with two-digit growth.[1]

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

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

But we need to raise taxes and stunt our economic growth to "save the environment".

Sounds just as stupid the other way. Stunt our environment to "save the economy." You can't eat money.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Sounds just as stupid the other way. Stunt our environment to "save the economy." You can't eat money.

Point being, we can't take action against climate change or anything like that without money and an economy to support it.

Cutting your nose off in spite of your face doesn't work.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

martin14 martin14:

But we need to raise taxes and stunt our economic growth to "save the environment".

Sounds just as stupid the other way. Stunt our environment to "save the economy." You can't eat money.

The big lie is that we need economic growth. We don't.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

martin14 martin14:

But we need to raise taxes and stunt our economic growth to "save the environment".

Sounds just as stupid the other way. Stunt our environment to "save the economy." You can't eat money.

But food production is up world wide. In North America pollution is down.

According to previous doom and gloom forecasts we weren't even supposed to be alive right now. Ask Ehrlich. Ask Holdren.

You know what those two Progressives forgot to factor into their apocalyptic prophesies? Capitalist innovation.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Point being, we can't take action against climate change or anything like that without money and an economy to support it.

Cutting your nose off in spite of your face doesn't work.

Agreed. But it also must be recognized that there is no economy with no environment, and the two are inextricably linked. Climate Change has already cost untold billions and those costs will rise with the temperature.

All we're really doing by increasing emissions, from an economic standpoint, is kicking the can down the road. It's not saving any money in the long term.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Agreed. But it also must be recognized that there is no economy with no environment, and the two are inextricably linked. Climate Change has already cost untold billions and those costs will rise with the temperature.

All we're really doing by increasing emissions, from an economic standpoint, is kicking the can down the road. It's not saving any money in the long term.

Are we really kicking the can down the road or are we just working to slow down the inevitable?

Are we coming up with these schemes to stop/slow down a process we can't stop?