Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

[seriousstan]

Source: FT.com

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.



Read more: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

[Javaman]

1. carbon credits the new ponzi scheme. nt

[greenman3610]

2. I don't think its a fair test

when the world's biggest emitter has
refused to engage in setting and enforcing
a carbon cap that is stingent and consistent.

When we get a new administration, we
will get a carbon cap. The record of this
type of control is positive in relation to
the mitigation of sulphur dioxide and acid
rain- but it has to be undertaken with
full commitment by those responsible.

[Javaman]

3. I think you are correct, but the way it's set up now under this

admin, it's just smoke and mirrors.

[marshall]

4. The whole thing seems like a scam to me

Everyone should just try to use less of whatever consumable resources they are using--whether it is an gas or toilet paper. This scheme about hiring other people to use less so you can keep on using more (whether it be an individual or a corporation) is ridiculous in my opinion.

[greenman3610]

5. You're not "hiring people to use less"

This law was very successful in reducing acid rain.

What the approach says is,
This is a priority for society, to reduce our current emission of (name a substance).
The law realizes that just stopping the generation of power is
impossible.
What it does, ideally, is set a tax, or licensing fee, on those releasing, say
CO2.
Anyone producing energy with no CO2 output, pays no licensing fee.
For instance, the recently announced wind plant in Sarnia, Ontario.
So, If I have a coal plant that I can't afford to shut down, or upgrade to
sequester carbon, I can buy some "credits" from the Sarnia wind producers.
Now, he is making more money. He can realize a greater profit, and
expand his operation to include more wind towers.
Meanwhile, my coal plant is still operating, but I am thinking
very hard about what adjustments I might make to clean it up, or replace it
with something cleaner. I might go into wind myself, or I might decide that
rather than build another coal plant, I will invest in energy efficiency
among my customer base to reduce demand instead of generate more.

The bottom line is, this approach cleaned up SO2 much faster and
cheaper than anyone believed possible, despite naysayers who
made the same argument that you are making, that
it was a "license to pollute".
I say we go with a proven approach and give it the attention
it deserves.

Furthermore, we need to re-examine how we present the
environmental argument. If we promise people "less" of
everything, we set ourselves up for failure.
The light I am working under uses 60 percent less
electricity than an older bulb. That doesn't mean
I have "less" light. I am just doing it smarter and
cheaper. It's important that we take that
positive message out there.

[gravity]

6. So2 is completely different from Co2

It is possible to use fossil fuels without producing So2, it is impossible to use them without producing Co2. The only way to cut back on emissions is to cut back on total energy consumption, which is much tougher to do than just requiring cleaner fuels and catalytic converters.

I do agree with having a tax on Co2 emissions is the best way to realistically combat global warming. The problem is that it would mean higher electricity and gas prices which people will not like, but nothing is going to work without making sacrifices.

[greenman3610]

7. does anyone believe energy costs are not going up anyway?

Moreover, the opportunities for renewable and lower
carbon power are greater than most folk realize, and
coming along faster.
Carbon sequestration, which I have been initially
suspicious of, is starting to look possible...

[razzleberry]

8. if Senator Lugar can sell carbon credits...

http://lugar.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=255829
selling carbon credits should not be limited to the rich.


DU should set up its own Carbon Exchange.
use PayPal, or something similiar.

Revenue could be used to buy faster computers.