Butters 0 #1 January 28, 2008 Buying carbon offsets buys ... nothing?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 January 28, 2008 Quote Buying carbon offsets buys ... nothing? Maybe a single share in the Goreacle® Foundation? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #3 January 28, 2008 QuoteBuying carbon offsets buys ... nothing? "Do as I say, not as I do."The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #4 January 28, 2008 The latest scam. Why bother reducing, when you can buy your guilt away.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #5 January 28, 2008 >Why bother reducing, when you can buy your guilt away. Exactly. Why bother actually helping the poor when you can donate to charity and buy your guilt away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 January 28, 2008 Quote>Why bother reducing, when you can buy your guilt away. Exactly. Why bother actually helping the poor when you can donate to charity and buy your guilt away. If the gov't is SO good at helping them, why are they still poor? Do we *STILL* not have the correct group of Socialists in power?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #7 January 28, 2008 >If the gov't is SO good at helping them, why are they still poor? I guess the government isn't so good at helping them. Which is fine with me. If you want to help them by giving money to relief organizations, more power to you. I won't even call you a gullible idiot (who is just assuaging his guilt) for doing so! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #8 January 28, 2008 stupid. flying around in a gs4, maintaining multiple house, and screaming about a global climate crisis is ok if you buy offsets? bullshit. if you really believe there is a climate crisis, stop creating so much greenhouse gas and buy your silly offsets. it doesn't matter what you buy, you are still putting co2 into the air. bill, this is more analogous to taking food directly from someone's mouth, but making it ok by donating money to a soup kitchen. as a person who doesn't just talk the talk, but also walks the walk, why do you defend this kind of stuff? "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #9 January 28, 2008 >bill, this is more analogous to taking food directly from someone's >mouth, but making it ok by donating money to a soup kitchen. More like someone who eats a LOT of meat (which takes enough grain to feed dozens) but decides it's OK because they contribute money to hunger charities. Are they hypocrites? >as a person who doesn't just talk the talk, but also walks the walk, why >do you defend this kind of stuff? I am fortunate in that I live in an area where we get a lot of sun, and I have a roof on which to set up a solar system. Not everyone is in such a situation. Carbon credits allow people who can't set up such a system to help out as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #10 January 28, 2008 There are places on-line where I can checkup on charities to get an idea of which ones actually put most of the money to the intended purpose. Example: http://www.give.org/reports/index.asp Until I can do comparable checks on carbon offsets, I must view them as ripe for fraud."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #11 January 28, 2008 many of the blowhards who say we're in a climate crisis live in southern california as well, but they aren't curtailing their lifestyles. they are continuing to live with huge carbon footprints. for the most part, its the liberals that are buying into this carbon offset thing, but the rest of us who live in moderate or conservative land mostly think it's a crock of shit. you guys need a new ad campaign. maybe something like "recycle and conserve because hey, it can't hurt". you can give me numbers until you are blue in the face, but me and plenty of people like me just can't believe that there is an actual man-made crisis when your biggest spokesperson also has a carbon footprint that rival small cities. "More like someone who eats a LOT of meat (which takes enough grain to feed dozens) but decides it's OK because they contribute money to hunger charities. Are they hypocrites?" I don't think so. If people ate less cow, less cows would be born, and there would be less cows to feed, hence less grain eaten by cows. i'm sure we agree up to this point, but i submit that less grain would be grown in the first place. I don't think that grain farmers say, "ok, now that we've got all of the cows fed, lets feed some hungry people with this left-over grain". "I am fortunate in that I live in an area where we get a lot of sun, and I have a roof on which to set up a solar system. Not everyone is in such a situation. Carbon credits allow people who can't set up such a system to help out as well." I really respect what you are doing, but you are an anomaly. I also suspect that no matter where you lived, you would make your house as efficient as possible, use the most renewable energy possible, and work on your bike. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #12 January 28, 2008 >Until I can do comparable checks on carbon offsets, I must view them as ripe for fraud. Definitely, and there already have been several cases of fraud by people taking money for (effectively) no reduction in CO2. I recommend people do not buy any carbon credits that have not been verified via a third party verification service. A few such organizations: Environmental Resources Trust Chicago Climate Exchange (they contract out verification to a few dozen other companies like Det Norske Veritas) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #13 January 28, 2008 >maybe something like "recycle and conserve because hey, it can't hurt" To which the answer will be "you do it if you want to, it's easier for me to just toss my cans in the trash." Why do we need "ad campaigns" at all? Plain ol' education works better. Leave the ad campaigns to power companies who want their customers to reduce power consumption when it's hot out. What we _should_ do is make options available to people. Give them the option to use a regular truck, or a hybrid, or an E85 truck, or a biodiesel truck. Let them throw out stuff if they want to or recycle stuff if they want to. Then add education and let people make their own choices. >but me and plenty of people like me just can't believe that there is an > actual man-made crisis . . . . And there are people who are watching their towns erode away who can't believe that there are people who think nothing's changing. > when your biggest spokesperson also has a carbon footprint that >rival small cities. ?? What does Gore's overuse of energy have to do with the science behind climate change? If he lived in a mud hut, deniers would be just as vehement. >i'm sure we agree up to this point, but i submit that less grain would be >grown in the first place. Eventually. In the interim there'd be a surplus of grain, and grain prices would be lower (supply/demand.) When it settled out, grain prices would still be a bit lower, since there are fixed supplies of things like land and water. But in any case, I don't think people should feel guilty over using power _or_ eating meat. I think people have a responsibility to not leave this place worse than they left it, and to help those in need when they can. When it comes to meat, perhaps that means eating only grassfed free-range beef, or contributing money to charities that feed the hungry. If you want to skydive and burn fossil fuel, maybe that means installing a solar power system so the DZ's propane generator doesn't have to run very much. Or not. Give people those options, educate them and let them choose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #14 January 28, 2008 Quote>Until I can do comparable checks on carbon offsets, I must view them as ripe for fraud. Definitely, and there already have been several cases of fraud by people taking money for (effectively) no reduction in CO2. I recommend people do not buy any carbon credits that have not been verified via a third party verification service. A few such organizations: Environmental Resources Trust Chicago Climate Exchange (they contract out verification to a few dozen other companies like Det Norske Veritas) If you read the article you would realize that the Chicago Climate Exchange is not a reliable third party verification service."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #15 January 28, 2008 >you would realize that the Chicago Climate Exchange is not a reliable third party verification service. They are not a third party verification service AT ALL. They contract those services out to other companies. See here: http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=102 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #16 January 28, 2008 QuoteMore like someone who eats a LOT of meat (which takes enough grain to feed dozens) but decides it's OK because they contribute money to hunger charities. Are they hypocrites? Actually, I compare it more to paying someone not to cheat on his wife while cheating on mine. Or, sponsoring a federal law against online child predation, as credit for doing it yourself. After all, you are spreading so much good through society. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #17 January 28, 2008 >Or, sponsoring a federal law against online child predation, as credit >for doing it yourself. Comparing carbon credits to pedophilia? You usually put a little more thought (and a bit less vituperation) into your posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #18 January 28, 2008 Apparently, carbon emissions is a modern political version of "sin." However, one who commits more than one's "fair share" of sin share merely purchase "credits" that others will receive in order NOT to do that act. I, for one, don't buy into the argument that if you pay someone else not to do something that you can do more of it to give a "credit." Some people defended Foley for having made a law that helped so many children out - he did so much good, after all, the thought that his misdeed were balanced by the good. I thought such defense was bullshit. And now we see some who pollute away, but say, "I've bought credits for my pollution." Or, more likely, "My film distributor and producers paid my credits." If pollution is bad, don't pollute any more than is necessary. Don't say, "I've paid 10k to this group to NOT pollute. I do their polluting for them." It reeks of dishonesty. Is is as bad as child predators? Not at all, in my book. But the concept, however, remains the same. I dont' care how much good a person has done otherwise. I'd like the person to stop whatever bad he or she is causing - especially if that person makes money off of preventing that activity in which he or she engages. Edited to add: Why not take these credits out of the private system. The air is, after all, a common that is regulated by the government. Why don't we instead TAX such person who engage in it, as opposed to "honor system." Treat private jets like cigarettes (hey, that rhymes) - they likely cause more greenhouse pollution than tobbaco. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #19 January 28, 2008 >Apparently, carbon emissions is a modern political version of "sin." As is gluttony. >However, one who commits more than one's "fair share" of sin share >merely purchase "credits" that others will receive in order NOT to do >that act. ?? Uh, no. No one gets paid "not to do that act" whether it's flying, driving etc. Carbon offsets are "redeemed" if you will through funding of clean power sources (like wind) or the elimination of a CO2 source (like CO2 sequestration project) or even both at once (like biogas capture/generation.) To use a more concrete example: If there was a dropzone by a lake shore without access to power, a skydiver might install a solar power system so that its propane generator didn't have to run as often. That would, in a way, "offset" his use of the Otter. Each load he was on might burn a gallon of JP-4, but the system he installed saves five gallons of propane a week. If he makes five jumps a week, no _additional_ fossil fuel is used, compared to the case where he had never installed the system and never jumped there. In other words, he has offset his usage - and no one has been "forced to not do something." Not everyone is able to do that. An alternative might be to buy carbon offsets. This would fund the installation of a solar power system somewhere else. Again, through his actions (purchase of carbon credits leading to a reduction of CO2, AND jumping) the net effect in terms of CO2 is zero. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #20 January 28, 2008 Should someone who rides a bike (or walks) to save money be able to sell carbon offsets to people who drive a car?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #21 January 28, 2008 > Should someone who rides a bike (or walks) to save money be able >to sell carbon offsets to people who drive a car? Good question. If: a) the system could actually work if you did it in such small amounts, b) you could independently verify that the guy is actually biking and not just driving his SUV to work and c) he is actually offsetting what would otherwise be a significant carbon emissions (i.e. he doesn't live next door to his compay) then I'd say yes. Ensuring all of that (and managing to ignore the howls of people who don't qualify) would be difficult though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,154 #22 January 28, 2008 QuoteShould someone who rides a bike (or walks) to save money be able to sell carbon offsets to people who drive a car? Ronald Reagan thought selling pollution credits was a great idea, and GHW Bush got them enshrined in law in the 1990 Clean Air Act. (An early version had been in place as long ago as the Nixon administration). It's funny that these darlings of the GOP have suddenly become bad now that a leading DEM is using them. Double standard, anyone?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #23 January 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteShould someone who rides a bike (or walks) to save money be able to sell carbon offsets to people who drive a car? Ronald Reagan thought selling pollution credits was a great idea, and GHW Bush got them enshrined in law in the 1990 Clean Air Act. (An early version had been in place as long ago as the Nixon administration). It's funny that these darlings of the GOP have suddenly become bad now that a leading DEM is using them. Double standard, anyone? no, at least not in may case. i think pollution credits are a dumb-ass idea too and should never have been allowed. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #24 January 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteShould someone who rides a bike (or walks) to save money be able to sell carbon offsets to people who drive a car? Ronald Reagan thought selling pollution credits was a great idea, and GHW Bush got them enshrined in law in the 1990 Clean Air Act. (An early version had been in place as long ago as the Nixon administration). It's funny that these darlings of the GOP have suddenly become bad now that a leading DEM is using them. Double standard, anyone? Yes. A double standard on all sides. Pollution credits are a nice thing. Don't get me wrong. But who is better - the person who doesn't pollute or the person who does pollute? Wouldn't you be prouder of Gore if he was the one who was a carbon sink? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #25 January 28, 2008 >But who is better - the person who doesn't pollute or the person who does pollute? Who's better - someone who feeds the poor, or someone who doesn't feed the poor (but gives lots of money to charities that do?) Not everyone can avoid polluting. Not every apartment dweller can insist that his landlord stop using oil for heat. Not every truck driver can insist that the long-haul company he works for uses biodiesel. Doesn't mean they're evil people, just means that they can't directly reduce their CO2 footprint by very much. Carbon offsets give them a way to do that indirectly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites