[QUOTE=John Mace]
I suspect you aren’t thinking of what “suspicious” actually means. (Hint: It does not mean I’m sure they’re a scam.) Or, you don’t know much about wikipedia.
[/QUOTE]
So fight my ignorance. Why does a short wikipedia entry raise your suspicions?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Conflict of interest, Al Gore is the carbon offset industry spokesman, while being the carbon snake oil salesman.
[/QUOTE]
Something tells me you’re not actually particularly interested in the issue in hand, but rather the partisanship.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
So fight my ignorance. Why does a short wikipedia entry raise your suspicions?
[/QUOTE]
It probably means the company is very new. In which case, I’m suspicious they know what they’re doing and/or don’t have a proven track record of success. And people who get into carbon offsets are exactly the kind of people who would love to expound on the benefits of such a company in a wikipedia entry.
It makes me want to poke a lot more to see how legit they are.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
Something tells me you’re not actually particularly interested in the issue in hand, but rather the partisanship.
[/QUOTE]
jjimm I am very suspicious of the motives of a person who tells you to do X to save the world, and he says he is doing X. Then you find out that for you to do X you will have to pay him, while for him to do X he makes money.
I also find Al Gore very hypocritical flying around in a private jet, and living in a very large mansion telling us to reduce our carbon footprint.
It is distrust for the man based on what I hear.
IMHO Al Gore has lowered the credibility of AGW by his very actions and lifestyle.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
I suspect that its more then a million times more expensive to offset a million people then it is to offset a single person. For example, according to the site, one of the ways they offset is by buying carbon credits. Buying enough for one person won’t effect the price, but buying millions will probably drive up demand to the point where it would be much more then a million times more expensive.
I imagine similar problems arise with scaling up other schemes to offset carbon emissions.
[/QUOTE]
I think this is the gist of it. The point is that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit to be plucked at the moment, i.e., there are things that can be done for very little money to reduce the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere and that is what your carbon credits are paying for. In fact, there are probably things that can be done for negative cost…since, for example, converting from incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent saves more money in energy than it costs. If some company could figure out a way to go into people’s houses and make this replacement for them and somehow accrue the energy savings (rather the homeowners accrue them), then this company could presumably do this and pay you a dividend for investing in them.
So, I don’t think this necessarily makes it a scam (although, admittedly, one has to worry somewhat about these organizations running these things being unregulated and how well verified some of the carbon offset and sequestration projects are). However, it does mean that you can simply scale the cost per ton to in order to determine the cost of much larger widescale reductions in carbon emissions.
[QUOTE=jshore]
I think this is the gist of it. The point is that there is a lot of low-hanging fruit to be plucked at the moment, i.e., there are things that can be done for very little money to reduce the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere and that is what your carbon credits are paying for. In fact, there are probably things that can be done for negative cost…since, for example, converting from incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent saves more money in energy than it costs. If some company could figure out a way to go into people’s houses and make this replacement for them and somehow accrue the energy savings (rather the homeowners accrue them), then this company could presumably do this and pay you a dividend for investing in them.
So, I don’t think this necessarily makes it a scam (although, admittedly, one has to worry somewhat about these organizations running these things being unregulated and how well verified some of the carbon offset and sequestration projects are). However, it does mean that you can simply scale the cost per ton to in order to determine the cost of much larger widescale reductions in carbon emissions.
[/QUOTE]
I would just add that, in the context of the Kyoto treaty, a third-party inspector has to approve the reduction. So, if Kenya wants to sell carbon permits to California because Kenya replaces a tree-burning powerplant with a fusion reactor, a third-party organization must verify that the Kenyan switch will result in the amount of reduced emissions claimed.
There is legitimate debate about the objectiveness of these third-party NGO’s (as they are often aligned with environmental movements), but the suspicion is largely in the direction of underestimating the offset, not overestimating it.
Oh lordy, a carbon sequestration thread. If only peopel knew how complicated this is. the fact is taht we dont; even know how to calculate carbon sequestration, much less how much is occuring where. Just to give some idea of why let’s look at a couple of random posts
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I think most of it is planted in the rainforest, and haven’t we been trying to stop deforestation there? If planting trees becomes more profitable than cutting them down, people will plant them. It will take quite a while before it all gets filled back up again.
[/QUOTE]
No, and no.
If planting trees becomes more profitable than cutting trees down in rainforest then it will more than double the rate of deforestation. This is one of the ironies of cabron trading from a conservation POV: it will cause a massive increase in logging.That’s because by logging forest and then replanting you get to sell the trees on the same acre of land three times to three different users. And if that makes you suspicious it should, yet under Kyoto standards that is excatly what will happen.
Let’s start from your position that planting trees is mor eprofitable than cutitng them down. That means that wood is worth $1.50/kg as standing biomass carbon and worth $1/kg as lumber. Now let’s imagine you own 1 acre of forest land with 1tonne of biomass carbon.
If you let it stand you you will have the equivalent $1, 500 in standing biomass, but it is worthless because as soon as you cut it down you incur a $1, 500 debt. IOW you have a potential asset, but you can never relaise the value of it, all you can ever do is incur a debt for losing that asset.
However if you cut your forest down you can sell the wood for $1, 000 dollars, meaning that you only incur the debt for $500 dollars. But having cut the forest down you can grow 5 crops of soybeans and sunflowers for a total profit of $500, at which point you are debt free. You can then turn off cattle each year for 5 years for a total profit of $500. So for having cleared your patch of forest you have made a total profit of $500.
But the story only starts there. Because you have already paid off the $1, 500 carbon debt from the clearing the land is clear title from a carbon trading POV. So you now sell a long-term sequestration contract for the land, promising to offset 0.6 tonnes of carbon emisison over the next 50 years. That contract now nets you $900 dollars over the 40 year term.
But it gets even better. You have sold a 40 year contract, but you can grow that amount of biomass in just 20 years. So you grow the first crop and then harvest it as lumber making another $600.
But it gets even better than that, because timber products don’t decay in landfill, so you can sell those carbon rights as well. So in addtion to selling the timber you also sell the carbon rights on the 40% that will never decay because it is landfill. So you can now make another $300 dollars on that.
So now from your original land you have:
Incurred the debt for the original timber: -$1, 500
Sold the forest product: +$1, 000
Sold the crops for 5 years: +$500
Sold the cattle for 5 years: +500
Sold the long-term cabron sequestration potential of the land: +$900
Sold the timber on the land: +$600
Sold the timber life-cycle sequestration: $300
So over 50 years anyone with a patch of rainforest will make $2, 300 over a 40 year cycle if they clear it. And they will make aboslutely nothing if they let it stand.
Quite simply if carbon trading becomes a serious relaity it will incraese the rate of deforestation.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
So, if Kenya wants to sell carbon permits to California because Kenya replaces a tree-burning powerplant with a fusion reactor…
[/QUOTE]
Tree-burning powerplants (biomass plants) are either carbon negative, ie they actually absorb more carbon than they produce, or they are carbon neutral. In contrats nuclearplants, while much less carbon positiove than coal-fired plants, are still major emmiters. IOW Kenya woudl incur a huge cabron deficit if it rpelaced biomass power plants with nuclear.
Sounds bizarre at first but that’s the way it works. Wood biomass plants use either trash from forestryor coppice material. Forestry trash is carbon neutral because it was already an incurred penalty in the baseline year (1996 under Kyoto). Coppice material is carbon positive because it removes material that is rapidly replaced, thus adding no additonal material to the atmosphere, while at the same time producing some reclacitrant materials such as charcoal which are considered long-term sinks. Solong as biomass statiosn are built close to the source they are carbon neutral. In contrast the fossil fuels involve idn mining, refining and shipping Uranium makes nuclear plants a net carbon source.
Which gives you some idea of how complicated and counterintuitive carbon accounting actually is. At our currentstate of knowledge you can come up with almost any figure you like and justify it, and someone else will immdiately challenge it.
Blake, thank you for trying to illustrate the difficulties with the carbon market as proposed under Kyoto. I’m not sure I completely understand all your points, but numbers never seem real to me til I’ve played with them, myself. Certainly the gist of your argument is pretty clear.
They allow Mr Gore and the rest of us to continue sinning against AGW but buy our way into peace of mind and contented, consumptive living. Like indulgences, they have no scientific effect although they do benefit the Church of the AGW.
As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, a criticism-free lifestyle springs.
Ring me up. I ain’t gonna live like no Tanzanian.
[QUOTE=Blake]
So now from your original land you have:
Incurred the debt for the original timber: -$1, 500
Sold the forest product: +$1, 000
Sold the crops for 5 years: +$500
Sold the cattle for 5 years: +500
Sold the long-term cabron sequestration potential of the land: +$900
Sold the timber on the land: +$600
Sold the timber life-cycle sequestration: $300
So over 50 years anyone with a patch of rainforest will make $2, 300 over a 40 year cycle if they clear it. And they will make aboslutely nothing if they let it stand.
[/QUOTE]
I might have to read that again, but I can’t see how carbon trading has made deforestation more profitable. There are only three items in that list that wouldn’t have been there anyway: Debt of timber, long term carbon seq, and life-cycle seq. With your numbers these give a net loss of $300, meaning that while chopping down the forest would still be profitable, it wouldn’t be as profitable as before.
And couldn’t an annual penalty for owning deforested land vs an annual reward for having trees work?
I intentionally chose fanciful examples. To the best of my knowledge, Kenya is without fusion power at this time. I think you missed my point, which was that if carbon emission is in the eye of the beholder, then we’re more likely to overdo it than underdo it with Kyoto, given the institutional setup.
[QUOTE=Blake]
In contrats nuclearplants, while much less carbon positiove than coal-fired plants, are still major emmiters.
[/QUOTE]
How are Nuke plants major carbon emmiters? How does uranium break down into CO2? Or if we get the fusion thing working, how is Hydrogen, or it’s isotopes, or He3 or whatever fusion fuel going to convert to CO2?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
How are Nuke plants major carbon emmiters? How does uranium break down into CO2? Or if we get the fusion thing working, how is Hydrogen, or it’s isotopes, or He3 or whatever fusion fuel going to convert to CO2?
[/QUOTE]
He says in the post that he’s talking about mining and transport of materials. Presumably construction pollution should also be included, as it is much greater for nukes than other forms.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
He says in the post that he’s talking about mining and transport of materials. Presumably construction pollution should also be included, as it is much greater for nukes than other forms.
[/QUOTE]
For fusion (which he stated) you would not need mining, perhaps space travel and lunar mining (lunar mining would not effect the earth CO2 levels) if it’s He3 however. But even so, using fision, the amount of actual Uranium fuel you would need would is far smaller then biomass fuel that has to be cut, hauled, replanted. ’
Building a nuke plant is more intensive I admit.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
jjimm I am very suspicious of the motives of a person who tells you to do X to save the world, and he says he is doing X. Then you find out that for you to do X you will have to pay him, while for him to do X he makes money.
I also find Al Gore very hypocritical flying around in a private jet, and living in a very large mansion telling us to reduce our carbon footprint.
It is distrust for the man based on what I hear.
IMHO Al Gore has lowered the credibility of AGW by his very actions and lifestyle.
bolding mine
[/QUOTE]
AGW?
let’s see, Google is my friend… Ah, here it is:
AGW Access Gateway
AGW Accident Generated Water
AGW Actual Gross Weight
AGW All Going Well
AGW Allowable Gross Weight
AGW Alt.Games.Warbirds (forum)
AGW Anganwadi Worker (India)
AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming
AGW Application Gateway (telecom)
AGW Art Gallery of Windsor (Ontario, Canada)
AGW Atmospheric Gravity Waves
AGW Automatic Girth Welder
AGW Autonomous Guided Weapon
Ah, yes, “Al Gore lowers the credibility **Autonomous Guided Weapon **”
Yeah! Darn him.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
How are Nuke plants major carbon emmiters? How does uranium break down into CO2? Or if we get the fusion thing working, how is Hydrogen, or it’s isotopes, or He3 or whatever fusion fuel going to convert to CO2?
[/QUOTE]
You have to think about the whole process, not just the end product.
For example, it’s not a good thing to buy a Hybrid if you end up emitting more greenhouse gases making the thing (and transporting it to the user) than if the user just kept driving his existing car. There will be payback at some point, but that “some point” could exceed the life the vehicle. You have to do all the math.
[QUOTE=Blake]
Which gives you some idea of how complicated and counterintuitive carbon accounting actually is. At our currentstate of knowledge you can come up with almost any figure you like and justify it, and someone else will immdiately challenge it.
[/QUOTE]
That is fascinating, Blake! Thank you! I hope you didn’t take my post to mean that I believe in carbon credits. Although I can see why you would think that from what I said, the point I was trying to make was in support of RickJay’s post, that if people believed carbon credits were helpful, the US could afford to buy up enough to neutralize the effect of all the fuel we burn, and that if we here in the US were interested in spending enough $$$ on them, there would be plenty of people around the globe who would try to meet the demand one way or another.
I find the entire notion of carbon credits to be an indulgence-selling scam, perpetrated by people who want to make money from it, and taken advantage of by people who want to feel less guilty about the fuel they use.
(I ripped off “indulgence-selling” from Chief Pedant…just want to give him credit here…that exactly expresses my POV on the subject.)
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I find the entire notion of carbon credits to be an indulgence-selling scam, perpetrated by people who want to make money from it, and taken advantage of by people who want to feel less guilty about the fuel they use.
(I ripped off “indulgence-selling” from Chief Pedant…just want to give him credit here…that exactly expresses my POV on the subject.)
[/QUOTE]
They can be a scam, but they don’t have to be. If we want to cap the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions at some level*, then having a market for those emissions is one way to do that. You’re simply not going to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, so why not make sure what emissions there are, have some value? If something has no value, then there is no reason to conserve it.
*Assuming that is something we can actually measure accurately, btw.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I find the entire notion of carbon credits to be an indulgence-selling scam, perpetrated by people who want to make money from it, and taken advantage of by people who want to feel less guilty about the fuel they use.
[/QUOTE]
The company in the OP is non-profit, so I don’t think anyones looking to make a fortune off it. As for it being a scam, well that’s only true if it doesn’t work. It’s debatable, but based on my earlier cite I think its at least possible that a well run credit scheme could serve to lower atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] levels.
If indulgences really kept you out of hell, they’d be a pretty good deal.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
The company in the OP is non-profit, so I don’t think anyones looking to make a fortune off it. As for it being a scam, well that’s only true if it doesn’t work. It’s debatable, but based on my earlier cite I think its at least possible that a well run credit scheme could serve to lower atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] levels.
If indulgences really kept you out of hell, they’d be a pretty good deal.
[/QUOTE]
True, but the problem with indulgences is that the most they ever really do is knock a few days off purgatory.