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.

 

How will carbon trading actually stop CO2 emissions?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Explain to me how carbon trading will stop CO2 emissions.



I am not very smart, and I am sitting on the fence on this issue.

Explain to me, how companies trading on the stock market a new "something" will actually stop CO2 emissions.

Also, how can one trade "something" that is actually non existent?

How will this trading of carbon credits be different than the derivatives market that has caused our current economic problems?

If fiat money systems can be manipulated, does one think this system will not be manipulated.

Have you heard of the fraud and corruption in the Netherland's carbon credits market already?

With carbon credits, will this decrease the amount of oil required to produce one joule of energy? How about 1 kW of electricity? How about 1 bushel of corn?

Give me your knowledge oh intelligent ones.




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I was thinking the same today.

Guess I'm not very smart either!

Maybe the idea is to just make it really expensive to emit carbon and sit back and wait for industry to come up with ways to reduce emmissions out of desperation.

In the meantime governments will make billions.

Or maybe the costs will just be passed on to us........

Oh crap I just read the last line. Disregard my post!

[edit on 7-12-2009 by OZtracized]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


it wont...its a way to take more of our money and redistribute it to the elite. all this does is make the consumers pay more money and more taxes....thats it. and why should we cap emissions anyways? global warming is a scam, therefor cap and trade is obviously a scam as well. thank you for helping to further ruin america obama, hope your socialist buddies know how to handle a revolution.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by chrisd250
 


No good blaming Obama and there is absolutely nothing "Socialist" about the whole scam. It's just more rampant capitalism dressed up as a touchy feely tree hugger style scheme. Look past the "Liberal Green" crap and you'll see the same old players who stand to make the most.
Besides, all this was being planned for years, going back to Dick Cheney's secret energy meetings with his other robber friends, including the infamous Ken Lay - not that name should, by itself, be enough to dismiss the whole AGW issue as a scam.


The pro-AGW crowd, with all their name calling and ridiculing of the "Deniers", cannot come up with anything to support their positions, except waving the same discredited data again and again in front of us and proclaiming the science is fact and proven. How long before they burn the first heretic?

They know they are on shaky ground, hence both Al Gore and Obama cancelling their trips to Copenhagen. Obama will only get there if they get what they want, and then proclaim it as a victory and try to take the credit. If it all goes belly up then he'll stay away to avoid the bad press.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe

Explain to me how carbon trading will stop CO2 emissions.



I am not very smart, and I am sitting on the fence on this issue.

Explain to me, how companies trading on the stock market a new "something" will actually stop CO2 emissions.

Also, how can one trade "something" that is actually non existent?

How will this trading of carbon credits be different than the derivatives market that has caused our current economic problems?

If fiat money systems can be manipulated, does one think this system will not be manipulated.

Have you heard of the fraud and corruption in the Netherland's carbon credits market already?

With carbon credits, will this decrease the amount of oil required to produce one joule of energy? How about 1 kW of electricity? How about 1 bushel of corn?

Give me your knowledge oh intelligent ones.


God man you are hitting on the pomp lately...

anyhow I agree that C&T will not reduce CO emissions directly, 100% agree

However if it is followed up be a technological race of sorts then is might indirectly have that result.

My problem OP is that many of you anti MMGW people are basing the entire argument
upon the Jankyness of C&T -

It appears that in order to defeat this scam many of you feel that negates the entire
argument related to human impact on Earths eco systems... this is where you and I diverge greatly. If you are against the scam be against it, but it appears that many equate this with a complete and total vindication that MAN DOES NOT EFFECT its surroundings with its activities. This point for me is about as reprehensible as C&T itself , I am not sure which is a greater folly really.

I mean I hear many of you SURE as #@#$ " man cannot impact our climate".

C&T and the later are mutually exclusive, separate issues End...

Can man made products create cancer?
Can man made products deplete the OZONE LAYER? (part of the atmosphere)
Can man completely pollute the largest fresh water bodies on Earth?
Can man inadvertently extinguish entire species in decades?

I would say the evidence shows that man CAN in fact impact the Earth -

I say to categorically deny this on the basis of Crap and Trade is "stupid".

Fight C&T and let science do its thing - bothsides should stick to the tangible financial
implications instead of hiding true motive$.

C&T wants a boom in tech and AC&T don't want a mandate on technology, behavior, taxes etc..

Bothsides have good enough motives to let their nuts sway in the wind...

All this science manipulation or assumed innocence is



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 




God man you are hitting on the pomp lately...


Yes Janky Red, I am like a bulldog that has gotten a hold of someone that has broken into the house, not letting go until I have a mouth full of meat.



It appears that in order to defeat this scam many of you feel that negates the entire argument related to human impact on Earths eco systems... this is where you and I diverge greatly. If you are against the scam be against it, but it appears that many equate this with a complete and total vindication that MAN DOES NOT EFFECT its surroundings with its activities. This point for me is about as reprehensible as C&T itself , I am not sure which is a greater folly really.


Janky Red, I myself believe real pollution must be stopped and if we were to poll the people against the CO2 scam/MMGW scam, we would find 95% of them are totally behind stopping pollution.

Can we stop pollution by charging the people NOT polluting?



I mean I hear many of you SURE as #@#$ " man cannot impact our climate".


Wrong here, we can effect our climate, but by how much or by what pollutants? CO2, what about all the actual pollutants. CO2 is not poisonous, what about the PCB's, VOC's, Perchlorat, etc etc etc.

No, I want to worry about a element that IS NOT EVEN A POISON. Plants need CO2, why why why?




Can man made products create cancer? Can man made products deplete the OZONE LAYER? (part of the atmosphere) Can man completely pollute the largest fresh water bodies on Earth? Can man inadvertently extinguish entire species in decades? I would say the evidence shows that man CAN in fact impact the Earth - I say to categorically deny this on the basis of Crap and Trade is "stupid". Fight C&T and let science do its thing - bothsides should stick to the tangible financial implications instead of hiding true motive$. C&T wants a boom in tech and AC&T don't want a mandate on technology, behavior, taxes etc.. Bothsides have good enough motives to let their nuts sway in the wind... All this science manipulation or assumed innocence is


I challenge you to find one quote in any of my threads or any other thread here that states what you have just said here.

You should be vehemently AGAINST this whole MMGW or CO2 tax scheme if you want any pollution control.

If this goes through, guess what, your bill has been paid by the governments. Want real pollution control? Sorry, we just passed the carbon credit bills and this is as much as we can do right now.

Expect pollution to triple as these Mega Corps start to dump their poisons that much more to save money.

THANKS, pollution will increase with this maneuver.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   
I so wish there was an anti star button.

The op in no way denied we cannot effect the environment, he is saying that the whole cap and trade is a rip off and that MMGW still has not been proven nor has it been disprovin.

MMGW is just another moral high horse that some people jump on to make there misreble lives have some sort of meaning "ohh look at me I am against MMGW, its been proven ect ect"

Until it is proven by real hard facts I am not confinced MMGW is real.

Not only that theres not many proponants of MMGW out there that will happily give up all there modern convinences.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by jpmail]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Janky Red
 




God man you are hitting on the pomp lately...


Yes Janky Red, I am like a bulldog that has gotten a hold of someone that has broken into the house, not letting go until I have a mouth full of meat.



It appears that in order to defeat this scam many of you feel that negates the entire argument related to human impact on Earths eco systems... this is where you and I diverge greatly. If you are against the scam be against it, but it appears that many equate this with a complete and total vindication that MAN DOES NOT EFFECT its surroundings with its activities. This point for me is about as reprehensible as C&T itself , I am not sure which is a greater folly really.


Janky Red, I myself believe real pollution must be stopped and if we were to poll the people against the CO2 scam/MMGW scam, we would find 95% of them are totally behind stopping pollution.

Can we stop pollution by charging the people NOT polluting?



I mean I hear many of you SURE as #@#$ " man cannot impact our climate".


Wrong here, we can effect our climate, but by how much or by what pollutants? CO2, what about all the actual pollutants. CO2 is not poisonous, what about the PCB's, VOC's, Perchlorat, etc etc etc.

No, I want to worry about a element that IS NOT EVEN A POISON. Plants need CO2, why why why?




Can man made products create cancer? Can man made products deplete the OZONE LAYER? (part of the atmosphere) Can man completely pollute the largest fresh water bodies on Earth? Can man inadvertently extinguish entire species in decades? I would say the evidence shows that man CAN in fact impact the Earth - I say to categorically deny this on the basis of Crap and Trade is "stupid". Fight C&T and let science do its thing - bothsides should stick to the tangible financial implications instead of hiding true motive$. C&T wants a boom in tech and AC&T don't want a mandate on technology, behavior, taxes etc.. Bothsides have good enough motives to let their nuts sway in the wind... All this science manipulation or assumed innocence is


I challenge you to find one quote in any of my threads or any other thread here that states what you have just said here.

You should be vehemently AGAINST this whole MMGW or CO2 tax scheme if you want any pollution control.

If this goes through, guess what, your bill has been paid by the governments. Want real pollution control? Sorry, we just passed the carbon credit bills and this is as much as we can do right now.

Expect pollution to triple as these Mega Corps start to dump their poisons that much more to save money.

THANKS, pollution will increase with this maneuver.


Thanks what???

I don't advocate C&T -

But as I said I am NOT convinced that man will not be swimming in a century-

I DGAFF if it is cooling, warming, burning or whichever. I am not sure what is happening, but I do know that the entire Sierra Nevada range went from packed with snow year round to barely a speck on mount Whitney in a decade and a half.

I AM AGAINST THE TAX SCEME - are you for government capping pollution without trade or taxes??? Could you go there being a conservative??? Cause I am NO C&T-

If you cannot condone CAPPING (ONLY) pollution then you are sort of for nothing if you think about it.

I see it as a political move to take MMGW completely off the table while striking down C&T - I repeat they ARE SEPARATE ISSUES - however I see a move to go for both as if they are the same. Meanwhile the is a glacier visiting NZ and it seems very evident that something more extraordinary than the sun created the heat to melt that thing off, no other factors ---- rendered half of Africa baron, Dry up 90% of the lakes in California, all in decades...

All I know for sure is that bloody ice melts with heat and it seems very suspicious that all this ice is melting once mankind hits its industrial age.

SO End, contrary to what you may think, I dig the stuff you lay down -

How do you suggest melting ice be explained, addressed or considered without using an adverb related to heat?

Do so many of you think this is all purely a "natural" happening (aside the fact that man is a portion of NATURe)?

What I see is dangerous - some people seem to believe capitalism and its tenets apply to the natural world - just because it is good for one does not mean it benefits both.
This is the underlying psychology I keep encountering, in this case I am conveying my observations.

Like it is all lumped into to ONE large goodness -

they are not - they are separate - projecting an ideology on the the physical world is lunacy on both sides.






[edit on 7-12-2009 by Janky Red]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
IT WONT...this is just a lame capitalistic way to make money from something that has to be done. If we can only care for the enviornment by making money from it then no wonder I have so much disillusionment in mans intelligence and government. This will not solve our problem and those damn politicians think it will....DAMN IDIOTS



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
IT WONT...this is just a lame capitalistic way to make money from something that has to be done. If we can only care for the enviornment by making money from it then no wonder I have so much disillusionment in mans intelligence and government. This will not solve our problem and those damn politicians think it will....DAMN IDIOTS


GOOD - thats the right attitude there

Don't forget the point

The environment and C&T are not the same thing

Star for you



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Carbon Trading is designed to act like an invisible hand that simply leads large carbon producing industries towards cleaner, more renewable forms of energy.

It's pretty simple really. Companies don't want to invest in these technologies right now because they are still expensive. Putting a cap on their allowed Carbon emissions and forcing them to buy extra credits levels the playing field in terms of cost.

But it also works two ways:

Because those companies that switch to cleaner forms of energy now have excess Carbon credits - they can make some of that extra cost back by selling those credits to other industries.

It's a pretty ingenious way of punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior, all the while keeping overall Carbon emission regulated.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


hmm and what about China Russia India Africa for example who have no choice to continue to use fossil fuels. These countries cannot afford to buy the new technology as it will require a major upgrades in their infrastructure which they cannot afford. Also what about Cattle. More jungle/forests to be chopped down to make grzing land. More methane from their backsides. Not to mention the infrastructure supporting the meat industry which uses fossil...
and these are just some of the top of my head. I am sure I can come up with more.........



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


It won't. It is a scam. Just like paying money to appease the volcano god. Or paying money to stop the solar eclipse and bring the sun back.

Paying money is only going to make you more poor and the lying commie pigs more wealthy.

The whole thing is just another attack on America and our economic and military supremacy.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
What does “god” (NASA’s Jim Hansen, AGW’s ‘creator’) have to say about this? Let us pray:

NASA's Hansen: Obama's Cap-and-Trade Bill 'Less Than Worthless'


Some leaders of big environmental organizations have said I'm naïve to posit an alternative to cap-and-trade, and have suggested I stick to climate modeling. Let's pass a bill, any bill, now and improve it later, they say. The real naïveté is their belief that they, and not the fossil-fuel interests, are driving the legislative process.
The fact is that the climate course set by Waxman-Markey is a disaster course. Their bill is an astoundingly inefficient way to get a tiny reduction of emissions. It's less than worthless, because it will delay by at least a decade starting on a path that is fundamentally sound from the standpoints of both economics and climate preservation.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Say it ain’t so, Jim! We’ve got Copenhagen and Obama to save us, right?


The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – “goals” for emission reductions, “offsets” that render even iron-clad goals almost meaningless, an ineffectual “cap-and-trade” mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics-as-usual.

Governments going to Copenhagen claim to have such goals for 2050, which they will
achieve with the “cap-and-trade” mechanism. They are lying through their teeth.


Cap and trade with offsets, in contrast, is astoundingly ineffective. Global emissions rose rapidly in response to Kyoto, as expected, because fossil fuels remained the cheapest energy.
Cap and trade is an inefficient compromise, paying off numerous special interests
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
www.columbia.edu...[url]

You can’t be serious, Jim. Isn’t “:carbon trading” or “cap and trade” the best possible solution?


Cap and trade with offsets, in contrast, is astoundingly ineffective. Global emissions rose rapidly in response to Kyoto, as expected, because fossil fuels remained the cheapest energy.
Cap and trade is an inefficient compromise, paying off numerous special interests

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree

Now wait a minute Jim. How can we not consider cap and trade; it’s the best possible approach, our leaders tell us?


Other characteristics of the ‘cap’ approach: (1) unpredictable price volatility, (2) it makes millionaires on Wall Street and other trading floors at public expense, (3) it is an invitation to blackmail by utilities that threaten ‘blackout coming’ to gain increased emission permits, (4) it has overhead costs and complexities, inviting lobbyists and delaying implementation.
The biggest problem with [cap and trade] is that it will not solve the problem.
www.columbia.edu...

Hey, don't take my word for it. Why not go to the "source?"

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 8-12-2009 by jdub297]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join