Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Full steam ahead for California carbon trading

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Full steam ahead for carbon trading


www.newscientist.com

How can you force firms to cut down their carbon emissions? Put a price on them. That's the idea behind carbon trading, which got a boost last week when California launched the world's second-largest carbon market. Other new and improved trading systems are springing up around the globe and could eventually work together.
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 21-11-2012 by Maxmars because: FIXED SOURCE TITLE - Changed after posting




posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Struggling... to ... keep... cynicism... in check!!!

In this thread, we may see those who wish to assert that carbon-trading is a racket, that carbon-trading is a surrogate revenue stream to replace dwindling debt, but the 'marketed' answer ... the one that our "political" so-called leaders have adopted is more along these lines...

"...a market-based tool to limit green house gases. The carbon market trades emissions under cap-and-trade schemes or with credits that pay for or offset green house gas reductions...."

Most here may know, and perhaps discuss the mechanics of the trading scheme; and of course the 'goal' would be "to reduce climate-changing emissions.' But our leaders seem enamored of the idea that "trading" implies.

It starts by giving away "free credits" to producers - as they did in Europe... but this article declares the wondrous future carbon trading has for us all...


The first carbon market was the European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS), set up as a result of the Kyoto protocol. Richard Newell and colleagues at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, calculate that European emissions fell by 2 to 5 per cent between 2005 and 2007 thanks to the ETS. Since then, however, the system has struggled, partly because firms were handed too many permits for free.

-TLDR summary

What the author of the article leaves out is that the market fell to 30% by October of 2012.

The fault? "Free credits." Who knew? Every dissenter from the beginning of this "commerce-driven" global legislation.

Industrial producers demand entitlement to compensation to curtail their environmental exploitation.... and it appears our "political" so-called "leaders" don't dare reject the demand....

And the ultimate agenda is know coalesced into the forefront...


The system will work better if markets link up to trade internationally - greater competition for permits should add to the incentive to cut emissions. The first such link will be between the ETS and Australia's new trading system, after it launches in 2015. "Linking is the holy grail," says Burtraw.


From the beginning this was another global revenue redistribution strategy. I'm sure we will be seeing and hearing much more about the "promising" nature of carbon trading... and perhaps they will make it 'personal to the global citizen' by creating a blanket cost for living in carbon credits....

Think that might be an extremely unlikely thing? I hope you are correct.

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 20-11-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
When was the last time you have seen acid rain?



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Now that carbon has been shown to follow times of warming instead of precede it I wonder how they are going to sell it?

Oh what am I saying... executive order... duh.

First comes the power of persuasion. If that doesn't work then next is the persuasion of power.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


This is my fear.

I hope it is not a global tax that we the people will be taking the brunt of.
I highly doubt the cost will be put directly on the individual companies producing the most.

There will be some tax loophole or some excuse and it will be indirectly (or directly even) put on the backs of the people...much like the bailouts were placed on the taxpayers and not on the people who created the problem.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Very interesting concept, I believe I recall reading an article on this some years back, though not as comprehensive as what you have posted.

My concern, as with the current global market, is that there are always those willing to cut the corners to increase their margins....always.

Now what does this mean in the context of the OP and carbon trading, someone is going to take on a lot of carbon with promises of dealing with it appropriately and in a environmentally friendly method. However is reality, will exploit loop holes and practice down right fraud to cheaply dump the carbon.

I got a image of some third world nation where a large pit will be dug and these pollutants buried..

The market-centric environment would promote effective means for handling pollutants and promote technological advancement, but I fear that on a significant scale it could lead to ecological disaster, in the short term anyways if it is no properly regulated.
edit on 20-11-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


They already do it. It doesn't take a new program for companies to cut corners. Which is why there are superfund sites all over the country.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Did I insinuate that companies were not already? I don't think so, I believe I said "as with current markets", so your comment is unnecessary.

The point/concern I was trying to make, is that a formal market system would further encourage the behaviour.

edit on 20-11-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


And one person that looks to become a multi-billionaire on all this?
Al Gore and all the people around him that created the platform and means to trade carbon credits.

So, while the world gets taxed even more, Al Gore and his lackeys get even richer.
What a joke.
We are doomed with this crap.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


Your point against carbon trading is that the system will be abused in order to make money. But those companies will abuse any system in order to make money.

But it will still be beneficial to those who don't. I was just supporting your point, no need to get hostile.

But carbon trading is a commodity, there will be those who abuse it, but it will still be effective.

The smart thing that California is doing is taking a lot of the money and giving it back to some of the companies so they can afford cleaner technology.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


The warming trend has long ended.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


It is not a tax, it is a commodity, the government just issues the permits, the credits go on the market.

The EU has been doing this for some time.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I doubt very much wether this carbon trading will have the desired effect. If the big companies have to pay this tariff in order to continue to operate the functions of thier businesses, then the increase in thier costs will merely be passed on to the consumer. It will not mean a drop in carbon use. It will merely mean an increase in price of goods and services, provided by affected companies.

The reality of the situation is this. Unless there is a way to prevent ANY of the cost of carbon purchase being passed onto customers of businesses, then businesses will not change thier tune. It has to hurt the company which provides the goods or services that use the carbon, not the customer buying them. One should not be at risk of having to pay extra so that big businesses can avoid loosing some of thier profits. Remember, this carbon scheme is only required at all because businesses refuse to make themselves carbon neutral under thier own power (do you see what I did there?) so to pass that cost on to the consumer is not going to help matters.

Not enough will be done to ensure this scheme has the effect that is desired.
edit on 20-11-2012 by TrueBrit because: Grammar fail. Sorry gang.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


My apologies, I did not mean for that post to come off barbed with hostility. I am typing on my Ipad and sometimes I forget how my posts may come across.

Thank you for supporting my opinion.

I will agree that big i business will always try to cut costs and this system will be no different. However may have more positive off shoots as it spurs clean energy technology or pollution management technology to be developed.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


This has been implemented for decades without a hitch with the acid rain program. You won't notice a thing except cleaner air. And it is not a tax.....

Austrailia is getting ready to hitch on to the EU, and Canada's will come out next year.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





It is not a tax


I didn't say it was one,I was implying that it is my fear that we foot the bill in the end if things don't work out.
Look back at the bailouts and who ended up paying when things didn't work out...THE TAXPAYERS.
Hence why I said,thats my fear.

Commodity or not,I don't have faith that the right thing will be done by companies and governments if an opportunity arises.
edit on 20-11-2012 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


Of course the expenses will be past on, it's just the way it works, companies do have a bottom line...

It makes me laugh when people keep calling to tax the rich because in effect they will just tax themselves...

The thing that gets me about all this is that how do they think this is going to help their end goal? Even if that goal is a load of non-sense... I mean you can still "pollute", they just have to pay up if they go over their allowance...

They really think that the co2 could end mankind and then they let people trade and buy their way out of responsibility?

This is a giant red flag to me, one of many...

But hey people still believe no matter how much evidence of foul play is found.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Yeah, because magically, because Govts can now tax more, that the air and skies will clear and the ocean will be clean. You are diluted.

carbontradexchange.com...

They business can still do what they want, they will just be taxed higher to do so.

It is a scam and has been a scam from the start.

Just another step towards the One World Govt and more control over people.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


Remember that this is just California, it is not federal. California is also starting out liberally with the permits, and will slowly cut them down. it will give companies time to find greener solutions.



posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Maxmars
 


And one person that looks to become a multi-billionaire on all this?
Al Gore and all the people around him that created the platform and means to trade carbon credits.

So, while the world gets taxed even more, Al Gore and his lackeys get even richer.
What a joke.
We are doomed with this crap.


What an Inconvenient Truth you uncovered right there.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join