Opinion: Carbon credits a scam to be feared

this is the hugest scam since the sub prime mortgage crisis. in the 1980s when we had an issue with "acid rain", they developed a system to exchange sulphur credits for exhaust stacks. this system ecnouraged the use of sulphur scrubbers to remove the sulphur from the exhaust. but there is no way to remove the green house gasses from all the industry . this is a way for al gore to get his "ghg exchange" up and running so he can make money on every "exchange"
dont get me wrong green house gasses are a huge problem, but setting up an exchange is not the way to fix it

So, because the acid rain SO2 tradeable emissions program was successful, that makes a "GHC" program "the hugest scam"? I see, I see.

lemmy, what i was trying to explain is with s02 there were scrubbers , so the choice was get a huge tax or put on scrubbers, its more economical to install scrubbers.
the problem here is there is no ghg scrubber. its a false economy based on ghgs. if it was going to help the environment I would be all for it. but its a money making scheme nothing else. when the biggest proponents of a scheme like this are the ones likely to make the most money from it (al gore) then you should be at least a little suspicious , as well as most REAL environmentalists ...that is scientists will tell anyone the goal is to reduce emissions not trade them

I can think of plenty of ways to scrub CO2. For instance, CO2 is commonly injected into soft drinks (the aqueous form of CO2 is known as carbonic acid, H2CO3, and is what makes pop fizzy. So what we do is we just inject all the extra CO2 into pop. That way we get rid of the CO2 we get fizzier pop.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

But yeah--I'm with you. Just legislate lower limits.

Absolutely rockindel - Off setting carbon is a tricky business - even planting trees just delays carbon release, doesn't reduce it. True carbon sinks are far and few between. And, carbon offsets also work by paying a country with low emissions while continuing to spew in the country of your choice. Doubt if that's very helpful.

If we want to reduce carbon, we have to tax it. Or as Bjorn Lomborg says, better yet is to invest money in research and production of alternate energy sources. Much more bang for the buck (I think he said 100:1) vs trying to reduce carbon from current sources.

And, I still have a suspicion that AGW isn't all it's cracked up to be.

The only alternate energy available at this point or in the near future is nuclear fission. Solar, wind, tidal, etc., are all just scribbling in the margin.

That's an idea, I need to open a nuclear fission chip shop.

Groan!

That's an idea, I need to open a nuclear fission chip shop.

Get a zookeeper as a partner, and it can be fission chimps.


Thorium reactors show promise too! It doesn't ned processing, and doesn't generate the waste of uranium reactors.

That's an idea, I need to open a nuclear fission chip shop.

Get a zookeeper as a partner, and it can be fission chimps.


Thorium reactors show promise too! It doesn't ned processing, and doesn't generate the waste of uranium reactors.

I haven't seen the physics, but I've read that if you have just one fusion reactor, it can handle waste from uranium reactors.

Of course, we've only got enough uranium for about 50 years....

anytime you have to pay a government organization for the "right" to do something you lose.

If they really want to get something done then start passing laws that require companies to use green methods of doing what they do and enforce them.

That simple.

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

Fission is a long way off yet. But Thorium and Breeder reactors are the cleanest.

I get a laugh out of that scare tactic too.

Edit: This too!

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/

So, because the acid rain SO2 tradeable emissions program was successful, that makes a "GHC" program "the hugest scam"? I see, I see.

hehe, indeed. There's no guarantee that a Carbon Market will succeed in its' goals, but all the arguments against it are just as baseless as the arguments made against the SO2 Markets which were very successful.

Tradeale emissions permits programs are every bit as effective as Pigouvian taxation, provided they're set up correctly. Lomborg has some interesting things to say, but he's not an economist. I am.