Why NO Mention of Carbon Offsets or Credits? A Security Threat Assessment of Global Climate Change

So this massive 86 page report is released on the 24th of February. Here's a snippet

A Product of the National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel on Climate Change Washington, DC, February 24, 2020 — In a comprehensive report released by the “National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel (NSMIP)” of the Center for Climate and Security, experts warn of High-to-Catastrophic threats to security from plausible climate change trajectories – the avoidance of which will require “quickly reducing and phasing out global greenhouse gas emissions.” The panel, made up of national security, military and intelligence experts, analyzed the globe through the lens of the U.S. Geographic Combatant Commands, and concluded that:

Home About Advisory Board Team Programs Policy Publications Press Resource Hub Events Contact The Center for Climate & Security Exploring The Security Risks of Climate Change

What puzzles me is that not one mention of Carbon "offsets" or "credits" is mentioned in the report? Why? seems to me that if you were serious in stopping this Global Climate Change you would stop the Carbon Offsets right here right now? Right as a mask is a mask as in a charade is a charade.

What are Carbon Credits?

Features of Carbon Credits When this ingenious concept was first discussed and the phrase coined, stakeholders saw mainly inherent benefits in on the one hand, sustaining life as we know it today, and on the other, rescuing the environment and cutting down on carbon emissions. But like the practice of using the dreaded credit card, the plan hasn’t worked up to now. In the meantime, this list highlights some of the main features of carbon credits, if correctly put into practice.

Has anyone noticed that on the heels of the failed impeachment we have had the Coronavirus launch from China, This Security Threat Assessment of Global Climate Change and an Oil Refinery explosion in California? So sheep just happens on cue?

You tell me so go ahead and write.

My big issue is why those who authored "A Security Threat Assessment of Global Climate Change" didn't even mention "Carbon Offsets" or "Credits".

Just sayin

a reply to: Waterglass

The government is just not as competent as you are assuming.

The coronavirus has nothing to do with the failed impeachment, global climate change, or some deep state pulling all the levers.

Although the coronavirus seems like a military bio-weapon, unless you have evidence, there doesn't seem to be any suggesting some deep-state conspiracy. It was probably just a Chinese invention that was accidentally released. I think I read somewhere there was a Chinese military bio-weapons lab within 1 or 2 kilometers of ground zero.

We know global climate change is real, caused by burning gasoline, and could have serious global consequence according to NASA scientists:

NASA Consensus: climate.nasa.gov...

NASA Causes: climate.nasa.gov...

I'm going to go with the super smart people working at NASA over Buba politician talking on Fox News on this topic.

But rather than be a complete doofus on this topic can we just separate public policy versus science. The science is sound. And if Big Oil doesn't want any public policies to address global warming then okay. But don't attack the smart people because the stupid people want to make money over every other consideration.

As long as you don't live near the ocean you should be okay:

"As many as 3.7 million U.S. residents in 2,150 coastal areas could be battered by damaging floods caused by global warming-induced storm surges, according to a new report published Wednesday in the journal Environment Research Letters. Sea levels could rise as much as 19 inches by 2050, according to what the report calls “mid-range projections.”"

www.pbs.org...

Again, please keep public policy discussions separate from the actual science. Attacking the science is just dumb at this point. But it's always open season on public policy. If the preferred unspoken public policy is just let Florida be covered with water in 100 years then woohoo vote Republican!

btw, the impeachment did not fail. Trump was impeached by the House and impeachment will always be part of his legacy despite the denial and spin.

a reply to: Waterglass

Carbon offsets and credits was a joke from the start. They were never going to reduce carbon emission only collect taxes and spread the carbon around to different places.

I see entire trains running coal both east and west on the tracks near my house.
High sulfur Virginia coal heading west, low sulfur high water content Montana coal heading east.

The power plants mix the coals to even out sulfur emissions to meet EPA regulations..
Totally lost in the scenario is all the wasted diesel and money hauling the crap.


The point is that none of the government's green policies have anything to do with green except for the green money.

a reply to: dfnj2015


Well thanks. You wrote a lot and did a nice piece. I will give you a star for your effort. However, you did not mention once Carbon Offsets or Credits in your response?

You write as an INTEL person would write to evade the issue as in make it go away. Happens all the time here.

Why?

a reply to: Waterglass

Cos' nobody liked them and they don't work? Says so right there in the report my man.

Carbon Offsets and/or Credits don't dissolve the carbon !!!

The carbon is still on Earth !! 😆

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: dfnj2015


Well thanks. You wrote a lot and did a nice piece. I will give you a star for your effort. However, you did not mention once Carbon Offsets or Credits in your response?

You write as an INTEL person would write to evade the issue as in make it go away. Happens all the time here.

Why?

I did not "evade" this issue. I said keep public policy separate from science. I'm okay with not having any public policies. If you think having Carbon Offsets or Credits is bad public policy then just say so. But do not attack the science. The science is sound.

I don't live in Florida or near the ocean. I could care less if all of Florida is underwater in 100 years.

But from what I've looked at with regards to the NASA science I referenced in my post it all looks like good science. The amount of carbon particulates measured in the atmosphere linked to the burning of gasoline seems to be accurate source of the pollution.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Carbon Offsets and/or Credits don't dissolve the carbon !!!

The carbon is still on Earth !!

I don't disagree. But the argument in favor of this public policy by making gasoline $10 / gallon people would stop using it.

I'm not a supporter of the this public policy. I prefer what the Chinese are doing in response to this problem:

China spending US$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors for faster aircraft carriers and in flying drones

I prefer public policy be around spending billions on alternative energy solutions that can be competitive with fossil fuels.

Many don't believe the "science" because the science was dead wrong in the 70's over the same concerns. We were going to completely run out of oil by now according to science. The ozone hole was going to be impossible to reverse. We had to go to solar, wind and electric cars and start recycling...blah blah.

None of it happened. More oil than we know what to do with, ozone hole is cyclic and solar, wind and electric are still not viable long term solutions. The tech has barely progressed in 50 years. Even Rachel Madow said recycling is a scam after having worked in the industry.

Sad part is despite all that, climate change activists will not even entertain some of the science could actually be wrong. According to them it's all fool proof but not surprising because they said the same thing in the 70's. It was flawless science and the world as we knew it was over with.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The science is not sound.
I've been involved in to many college research papers to buy that one.
The reason so many of their predictions have been wrong is because of the flawed data and failed projection models.
When the models fail to be anywhere near accurate the trend is to go back and revise the data.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Many don't believe the "science" because the science was dead wrong in the 70's over the same concerns.

The science has never been wrong. Science is never wrong. Science is just a way to eliminating prejudice, bias, and superstition from the conversation. Science is a process that takes time to eventually offer the best assessment based on the evidence.

People just think the "science" is wrong because of propaganda. We know advertising works. If you tell people what to think they will eventually believe it.



“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

― George W. Bush

GWB is undoubtedly the greatest president in my lifetime. He got more of his agenda done than any other president in my lifetime. Obama was the worse president since he got pretty much NOTHING done.

a reply to: dfnj2015

We're not China. We don't control what they spend their money on.

Also, there is no way that you are a scientist or work in a science capacity. You don't write like a scientist or think like one either. No offense, obviously. The world needs whatever you do too. I think.

But from what I've looked at with regards to the NASA science I referenced in my post it all looks like good science. The amount of carbon particulates measured in the atmosphere linked to the burning of gasoline seems to be accurate source of the pollution.

Particulate matter is a source of concern, but please don't overstate your position here. It just forces those with opposing political positions to hit back against your overstatement, and many will reject the science outright as a consequence of the inaccuracy.

The word you are struggling for is multivariable. The solutions to global climate change are likewise multivariable. Many of those are not really solutions at all. They are mitigating factors. Stronger/higher seawalls for example. Converting our current monoculture-focused food production to polyculture is another.

Finally, developing greener fuels is a laudable idea in concept, but much of what we have seen so far is sales and marketing. Electric cars, for example, allow drivers to feel like they are "doing something" for the environment, but they have simply transferred the responsibility upstream. Electricity is still largely generated by burning fossil fuels. This could change if we made a coordinated effort to transfer the bulk of our energy production to thorium reactors, but environmentalists hate nuclear and don't know the difference.

Finally, solar would be orders of magnitude more productive if based in space and beamed down to receiving stations via microwave. We already possess engineering and materials science know how to do this, but there is no political "will" to do it, even though it would pay increasing dividends going forward. We could cool the world by 1-percent using a combination of thorium and space-based microwave energy power which would be more than enough to completely mitigate global climate change while we develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Will we? Probably not until the mitigation of after effects measurably slows down the economy. That is also a well studied and understood phenonmenon, btw.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm going to go with the scientists working at NASA over you. Sorry. I think it's a question of prestige and schooling.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015

The science is not sound.
I've been involved in to many college research papers to buy that one.
The reason so many of their predictions have been wrong is because of the flawed data and failed projection models.
When the models fail to be anywhere near accurate the trend is to go back and revise the data.

The nerve, gall, audacity, effrontery to question science. I dare you (in my best Greta furrowed brow face).

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Contrary to your Big Oil agenda delusions, it's pretty clear where the carbon is coming from:

"Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change."

Sorry, I'm going to go with the NASA scientists over the drivel from your post.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm going to go with the scientists working at NASA over you. Sorry. I think it's a question of prestige and schooling.

List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents:

en.wikipedia.org...

Pages and pages of science they thought they had right gone completely wrong.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Science is always being questioned. The point of science is to eliminate bias, prejudice, and superstition from the conversation. Why are you promoting a particular outcome? Why not just let the evidence and data speak for itself?

The science has never been wrong.

oh really.....


www.discovermagazine.com...

a reply to: dfnj2015

Never said you shouldn't.
I'm only saying don't blindly follow.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Multivariable. Say it with me. I know you can do it.

You say you want billions spent in researching cleaner energy to mitigate atmospheric CO2. Great! Please explain how electric cars have done anything to help the problem so far?

Do you see the problem here? The people who disagree with you don't even necessarily disagree with your core-premise. We should clean up our act. Pretending that we can mitigate all off the effects with "green energy" is not science. You are still going to need higher seawalls (engineering). You still need better and more efficient (by several orders of magnitude) alternatives to fossil fuels.

What is your opinion on thorium reactors?