Carbon Offsetting

[Mercadante]

Carbon trading is a total scam, IMO, but it's absolutely not the product of this government. The Kyoto Protocol was finally agreed in 1997 after long negotiations. In those negotiations the US insisted on emissions trading being included in it; the EU (and environmentalists everywhere) opposed that, but gave way at the end. Then, of course, the US didn't ratify the agreement anyway.

[Poirot]

Originally Posted by nightshade

So all the trees planted for carbon offsetting are then cut and used as biomass fuel instead of oil where does the carbon go?

Its not helping the enviroment like you said as the offsetting doesn't do anything, for it to work you have o leave the trees in place. When are companys going to learn?

In Brazil they grow their own fuel, the process is carbon neurtral as the carbon absorbed by the plant is the same as released by the fuel. However fermentation, harvesting methods e.t.c. Mean it isn't actually fully carbon neutral, but i suppose it is better than oil

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Mercadante

Carbon trading is a total scam, IMO, but it's absolutely not the product of this government. The Kyoto Protocol was finally agreed in 1997 after long negotiations. In those negotiations the US insisted on emissions trading being included in it; the EU (and environmentalists everywhere) opposed that, but gave way at the end. Then, of course, the US didn't ratify the agreement anyway.

there's nothing wrong with carbon trading per se. It has been used for other pollutants very successfully and before the Kyoto Protocol. A permit scheme will lead to a reduction in emissions because the whole point is that fewer permits are released than current emissions (e.g. current emissions are 1million tonnes, so only 900,000 permits are released). It has also been show to be far more cost effective than traditional pollution control methods (and no less effective).

This thread is muddling permit trading, which is fine in principle, with carbon offsetting. The latter is quite different and is all about creating carbon sinks to absorb concentrations. I am sceptical about carbon offsets but think pollution permits are the way forward.

Matt

[nightshade]

So when land is dedicated to growing crops for fuel where does the burgeoning population go,it seems this is an insoluble problem with
the baddies making money all the while

[Meta menardi]

I do what seems sensible, less heat, don't use a car much, recycle, low energy light-bulbs etc.

Can anyone tell me the best and most green way to plug my ears when combat jets are pratting about for a few hours each day? Don't want to waste energy on un-green ear-defenders.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

I am sceptical about carbon offsets but think pollution permits are the way forward.

Matt

a big problem with carbon offsetting is that the money goes only to plant trees (after a percentage of profit is skimmed off) - in a lot of these schemes there is no provision for aftercare meaning that many will die from being too close together and even those that survive may be felled very early in their lives - many of these schemes are little more than a con

It would be better if the carbon offset money went into a fund (like landfil tax arrangements) which was used to fund woodland improvements and sustainable tree planting.