It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market: Greenpeace

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
The greenies cook up so much BS they can't keep it straight. one day it's "global warming" the next it's "climate change" because the whole warming thing didn't pan out. I trust the green people about as far as i can pick all of them up and throw them. Cap and trade and all the other legislation they're pushing are just to line their pockets. $00.02


TheAssociate




posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 

It's not just 'greenies' anymore. Big industry is on board now, like Monsanto and Kellogg. Both of these, and others, are pushing "food safety" legislation designed to capitalize on the 'crisis' mentality. They want regulations and inspections that won't affect them, but will destroy small farms and local farming.

Using claims of 'crisis' to push thru bad regulations is part of the power game Greenpeace is attempting to capitalize on. They are in it for profit and nothing less.

jw



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by proteus33
why should they care if they are giving out carbon credits for planting trees.


You can't spend a tree.

As it stands now, you can't even spend a European carbon credit!

When real-world market principles are applied to phony "markets," the bottom inevitably falls out.

Deny ignorance.

jw


EXACTLY!

And, trees aren't the ultimate universal carbon sinks. Just planting trees isn't going to fix our environment, nor is it going to undo the damage we're continuing to do by allowing the carbon-credit scam to continue.

We're going to end up royally #ing ourselves over if this keeps up, and in the meantime all we'll accomplish is making a few bank accounts bigger.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


You are right.. the greenies are far from the only ones pushing "cap and trade" because allot of them know it is a scam as well.

The FINANCIAL sector (aka ENRON like) trading these "credits" like "oil futures' is now the driving force for this along with Government who makes billions "issuing" them in the first place. Remember the Obama administration already estimates 650 Billion from this annually in the new budget.

Were so screwed. We are going to be paying a crap-ton of money to make these paper traders rich.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Originally posted by infolurker

The FINANCIAL sector (aka ENRON like) trading these "credits" like "oil futures' is now the driving force for this along with Government who makes billions "issuing" them in the first place. Remember the Obama administration already estimates 650 Billion from this annually in the new budget.


Sure. Even though the AGW folks keep pointing to "big oil" as supporting the opposing views, the truth is that Exxon-Mobil, Conoco/Phillips and BP all support the carbon credit and cap and trade regimes!

They stand to make big profits from the "paper trading" you referred to. Most of the 'investors' in the EU carbon crdit scheme are power companies trying to leverage new projects and investments.

The scheme hasn't stopped any producers from emitting CO2, it just raises the price the consumers pay for the juice. What a farce!


jw



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 03:38 AM
link   
I find this quite hilarious, because after all, the entire name of "Greenpeace" was started to bring attention to such issues as Deforestation, and the Pollution of Natural Habitats.

Seriously folks, if this Organization full of "Tree Huggers" is now taking a stand against Reforestation, then what does that tell you?



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 
Sure, and it sort of follows on the hypocrisy of PETA when they have no qualms whatsoever about endangering the entire genera homo, much less the species sapiens.

If there were not tax rules and tax-free donor income favoring these 502(c)(3) 'non-profits,' they would cease to exist. Their causes are as empty as their logic.

These groups should have been included on the Missouri DPS memo as "terrorist organizations" as much as Libertarians and states-rights advocates!


Deny Ignorance.

jw



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Brazil, Indonesia etc need an economic incentive to keep their rainforests up.

I'd rather have a forest and a carbon credit at 25 cents than no forests and a credit at a dollar.

That said, there is a vital point about supply and demand being commensurate with effort. Merely maintaining forests should earn a person much less than actively planting new trees/ making their business more carbon efficient/ removing carbon from the atmosphere.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
... there is a vital point about supply and demand being commensurate with effort.


No, there is not. The focus should be on results, not effort.

Anyone who's seen or read reports of the dozens of experiments and studies on carbon sequestration (see, variously: 'Discovery', 'History Channel', 'NatGeo' series and 'specials') knows that a great deal of "effort", and the expenditure of tremendous amounts of time, human skill, thought and industry, together with tons of hydrocarbon fuel, have been wasted in the quest for carbon-neutral carbon sequestration, with ZERO results.

("Rube Goldberg" springs to mind with the effort-rich processes tried, with minimal results. Do we really want to reward rube-goldberg-esque contraptions at the expense of economical solutions?)

After watching a couple of hours of a recent series about experiments to remove CO2 from the "Hot Earth," it occurred to me that these "specials" accomplished nothing, yet poured tons of CO2 into the air in the process. Not counting the waste of time and resources in the experiments themselves, and the taping/broadcast/viewing.

Purely a commercial project for the benefit of those involved and at the expense of the environment! What hypocrisy!

In sum, "effort" deserves no reward whatsoever (in fact, that has driven the EU carbon credit program into NEGATIVE returns).

Results deserve the reward, regardless of effort.

In fact, if you think about it, for any CO2 remediation program to be cost effective, it will require the least effort, relative to results!


jw



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I beg your pardon, I chose the wrong word.

Perhaps I should have said "input" rather than effort.

Granting carbon credits to owners of pre-existing forests doesn't make that much sense. We need to give them an incentive not to cut the forests down, but not overpay them.

We need to pay high premiums (high carbon credit values) for those who have a greater amount of input (innovation of new technologies, effiency creation etc).

Thats the difference between passive and active "effort"- both should be rewarded, but one more so than the other.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 

Input and effort seem = , or nearly so. If I come up with a great idea, that's 'input.' If I build a carbon "scrubber" that's input, too. The first results in capturing 1 ton CO2 at a cost of $1,500. The second captures 1 ton at $25,000 ( and requires the manufacture and operation of a machine, each of which require use of carbon-based fuel, energy and materials). Who gets the most "credit?"

If the first idea is to buy and replant 1 acre, or buy and preserve 1 acre, does that change the equation?

Greenpeace, if they are sincere, would advocate rewarding the net sequestration of carbon, net of development and deployment.

All of this is hot air anyway since man does not significantly affect global climate change.

We are much better served focusing on local changes that benefit the environment generally than chasing after phantom "crises."


Deny ignorance.

jw

p.s.: say 'hi' to my 27 y.o., 5'8", gorgeous International Lawyer daughter in London.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer

Granting carbon credits to owners of pre-existing forests doesn't make that much sense. We need to give them an incentive not to cut the forests down, but not overpay them.

Now, you see, this is a great example of policy without forethought, the main condition that has us in all of the messes we find ourselves in. As an example, let us consider Joe Schmoe, a nice (fictional) fellow who lives on his 200 acres of lush forest. Joe likes the trees, and he doesn't want to cut them down. So there's no need to pay him much, since he's already doing what we want him to do.

But Joe has a problem. Joe lives way out away from town, and has a pickup truck so he can haul materials to his forest since it costs so much for anyone else to bring things out to him. So he uses a lot of gasoline between high mileage and poor fuel economy. Therefore he has a hefty gasoline bill. He has managed to get by anyway all these years, but now since we implemented a carbon tax on that gasoline, Joe can't make ends meet any more.

Oh, he tries. But his job hours are being cut back and prices are rising due to inflation. Finally he has to take a drastic step: sell the trees to be cut down and turned into nice clean paper (let's assume for leaflets advertising Al Gore's latest movie
). So this idea of not paying Joe for what he has been doing all these years has backfired and forced Joe to cut down all those trees.

Oh, you say, but now he can plant more trees and benefit. No, I doubt that. Since he just cut down trees, he is now legally considered a tree farmer if he immediately plants another 'crop', and therefore isn't eligible for any tax credits. After all, he just cut down a stand of 200 year old trees, so why should we reward that? And worse, since he still isn't getting any help from Uncle Sam, his only recourse is to become a tree farmer in earnest, making sure that patch of forest will never exist again.

200 acres isn't all that much really. But multiply it by thousands upon thousands of people across the nation all in the same situation, and it becomes a big deal. And it makes things much worse. This little example is a great indication of why these fancy programs never succeed and generally promote the exact opposite of what they intended to do. This program was intended to encourage more tree growth to combat CO2 and maintain natural areas; it instead will cause the destruction of millions of acres of forest that would otherwise exist and in the process hurt those who have been helping do exactly what the program wants to do for decades.

Think things through with an eye to reality instead of some fantasy ideal of 'fairness' before you decide what is a great idea and what isn't. The purpose is to grow more trees, and intentions, effort, 'input', or anything else is irrelevant if we want it to do what it is intended to do. Otherwise, we destroy that we wish to save, and ensure that which we want to rid ourselves of.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
The largest sources of GHG's are volcanic activity, decay of vegetative matter in forests, and water evaporation from lakes, rivers and oceans. Human activity only contributes less than 1% of GHG emissions.

www.geocraft.com...

All of you childish, anti-capitalists need to grow up.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by riff_raff
 

As long as the AGW terrorizers rely on "models" they will claim that "science" backs them up; regardless of reality, based on measurment.

By all measures, water vapor and methane are more likely to affect climate that anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

s4u

jw



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297



Related News Links:
www.cato.org
www.reuters.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Cato Ad: "With All Due Respect Mr. President, That (AGW) Is Not True"


Posting something from the Koch Bros/Exxon/Shell/BP funded Climate Denial Machine that is the Cato Institute as 'News?'

www.triplepundit.com...

I guess there is a sucker born every minute. It would only take you 2.9 seconds to discover Cato's sources of funding - ie: carbon fuels industry. How hard is that to add up?




top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join