International Politics

[Gillvane]

Whatever the temperatures are at any given point without human influence. Earths temperature of course varies naturally, and that variation hasn't stopped. The problem with the current situation is that we are running an uncontrolled climate experiment that offsets the natural variation, adding significantly to the energy balance of the earth.



Yes it has. But not while there has been reasonably big human civilization.



I wouldn't bet on that.



That's just plain stupid. Not even worth an answer really.



Yes. So what?

We are talking all in all about just a few percent rise in the strength of the greenhouse effect, not about doubling it or somesuch nonsense. Without greenhouse effect, earth's average temperature would be about -18 degrees celcius. With the greenhouse effect, it's about +15 degrees celsius. The total net warming effect is about 33 degrees celsius.

Even if CO2 was only responsible of 9% of the effect (the lowest estimate - about 3 degrees), doubling CO2 would make for another 9% rise in the greenhouse effect – which would cause warming of around 3 degrees, if things were linear. But they are not.

The direct effect on greenhouse effect by doubling CO2 is actually estimated to be less than that, AFAIK largely because some frequency bands CO2 affects are already saturated. But it's not as simple as that either: warming temperature will increase the amount of moisture in the atmosphere, so there's a positive feedback (water vapor isn't the only, but probably most significant of these). So, increasing CO2 will indeed also increase water vapor. All the forcings combined, the current best estimate for the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is actually pretty close to that 3 degrees.



The warming so far, about 0,75 degrees since pre-industrial times would need roughly 2% stronger greenhouse effect (using crude in-my-head calculus: the actually science is more complicated than that). Adding 50% to the concentration of a gas which has total effect of at least 9% sounds like a rather plausible reason for such a small increase, don't you think?

Of course, it's not the only way we affect the climate, there's the other gasses we emit (some of which actually cool the atmosphere), changes in land use etc.



Because the 100% change may require only 2% increase in the greenhouse effect.



Actually, it seems that in the last few decades, human influence has likely been MORE than just 100% of the warming: the natural drivers of climate (sun's activity, multidecadal oscillations, volcanic activity etc.) would indicate a cooling trend if there was no human influence. So in addition to the measured warming, it seems human influence has also offset the cooling by natural causes.



We're talking about at least a degree or two over the next 1000 years, possibly more. I do not know where you got that price tag, but to me it sounds rather silly too. Anyway, if cost is the only thing you're concerned about, the current best estimates are that preventing additional warming now is actually cheaper than adapting to it later.



Dinosaurs probably liked it. Current species would not. Getting jurassic-like climate in a transition period of anly a few hundred or so years would mean mass extinctions, and very likely collapse of human civilization as we know it too. I think you're vastly overestimating the capability to adapt to change.



That's probably true. The best way to reduce population is to educate, especially women. I'm all for that.



The real numbers are closer to instead of 3-4 degrees it will warm only 2 or so degrees. That's a difference between something that can still be adapted to somewhat reasonably, and something that's a real catastrophe.



Slowly going up is way better than going up fast.


As said, the target is to keep the warming under 2 degrees. At current course of action, we will likely miss that.



The number so far is around 0,75 degrees celsius. The range in the next hundred or so years varies between at best around 2 and at worst maybe 6 degrees, depending on what we do.

If those numbers sound small, remember that the average global temperature in an ice age is only about 5 or so degrees lower than currently. Small sounding changes have a big effect.

IMO, you may do whatever you like to reduce Co2 emissions, as long as it does not involve wealth redistribution.

And, your actions MUST actually reduce Co2.

For example, under these guidelines Cap and Trade policies would not be permissible.

I create a ton of Co2. You create 1/2 ton because you don't do as much business as me, and my business is much more successful than yours. Total Co2 emitted is 1 and 1/2 ton.

I can't do more business because my Co2 levels are capped at 1 ton, but I have capacity to do much more because there is demand.

So I buy your remaining 1/2 ton of "carbon credits", and produce more, and now emit 1 ton and 1/2 of Co2, and you continue to emit 1/2 ton.

What is the result? 2 tons of Co2 where there used to be 1 ton an 1/2 tons.

What has changed? I had to give money to you, because I'm a successful business, and you're not as successful.

Money was redistributed, Co2 levels INCREASED, not decreased.

That's wealth redistribution, does not decrease Co2 at all. This would not be allowed. If you want to do this, just say I'm taking money from Business A and giving it to Business B, AND skimming a healthy commission off the top. No need to make up stories about wanting to "reduce Co2", just redistribute the wealth, and let politicians skim off the top if that's your goal.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if you want to build a nuclear plant, go for it.

That will actually produce energy that does not produce Co2. I would have no problems with policies that are not about wealth redistribution.

IMO, the Co2 is not a problem, but reliance on oil is a HUGE problem.

Unfortunately, the goal getting rid of Co2 does not reduce reliance on oil, it just moves money around.

If instead, you concentrate on replacing oil, you attack a real problem with real solutions.

here's another example.

Banning SUV's does nothing to reduce Co2. It just moves Co2 production from cars burning gasoline to plants manufacturing batteries, and those batteries being charged by oil fired electric plants.

You're not creating energy to replace oil, you're just picking winners and losers. Teh SuV manufacturers lose because you don't like them, the battery manufacturers and oil fired electric plants win.

On the other hand, if you want to BUILD high speed rail powered by a nuclear plant, that would actually replace oil used, and not just redistribute wealth.

I support a positive approach that creates energy, you support wealth redistribution.

I support making MORE energy.

You support conservation of energy, which does nothing if you don't do anything about population control.

Again, 1 billion mopeds creates much more Co2 than 1 SuV.

This approach does nothing and Co2 emissions continue to increase.

My approach actually reduces Co2 emissions by creating alternative energy, not just skimming money from corrupt programs, or picking winners and losers in the market place.

[Halsu]

The scientists that are absolutely positive that Man is 100% responsible for all global warming, say Man's contribution of water vapor in the atmosphere is negligible.

They do not. The direct water vapor emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions, but the positive feedback is not. Again: when we burn stuff and make CO2 etc., it warms the atmosphere and oceans due to increased greenhouse effect. That warming increases the air's capability to hold water vapor, and thus increases the emission from oceans etc. The increased water vapor concentration warms the atmosphere even more until at some point, a new equilibrium is reached. This is not by any means neglible.

[Gillvane]

They do not. The direct water vapor emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions, but the positive feedback is not. Again: when we burn stuff and make CO2 etc., it warms the atmosphere and oceans due to increased greenhouse effect. That warming increases the air's capability to hold water vapor, and thus increases the emission from oceans etc. The increased water vapor concentration warms the atmosphere even more until at some point, a new equilibrium is reached. This is not by any means neglible.

Again, I support the creation of energy that replaces oil consumption.

I do not support picking winners and losers in the market place, or creating corrupt programs for politicians to get rich like cap and trade.

I support building solar, nuclear, wind, and thermal power plants.

If you want to collect revenue, and spend that money to BUILD more power that replaces oil, I support you.

If you want to engage in wealth redistribution and programs that encourage corruption, I will vote against those sorts of programs and urge my government not to support them internationally.

Kyoto protocols? Absolutely not. Just another program to end up in corruption like the Oil for Food scandal. It has been proven to INCREASE Co2, not decrease it, but it does make politicians rich.

If you want to start something like the IMF for loans to build nuclear power, I'm all for it.

If you want to build solar power plants, I'm all for it.

If you want to build wind turbines, I'm all for it.

BUILD clean power, I'll support you.

Create corruption and redistribute wealth, I'm against you.

[Halsu]

For example, under these guidelines Cap and Trade policies would not be permissible.

I haven't studied Cap and Trade much, but i do not think it works the way you describe. It's not a matter of punishing big factories and rewarding small ones, but rather punishing inefficient factories and rewarding efficient ones. Efficiency in this case is a ratio between used energy and carbon emissions - a carbon efficient factory can use a lot of energy but produces low emissions.

IMO, the Co2 is not a problem, but reliance on oil is a HUGE problem.

Both are. And the solution to one will likely help with the other...

If instead, you concentrate on replacing oil, you attack a real problem with real solutions.

Make that oil, but also coal etc. fossil fuels and we agree.

Banning SUV's does nothing to reduce Co2. It just moves Co2 production from cars burning gasoline to plants manufacturing batteries, and those batteries being charged by oil fired electric plants.

That of course is only true if the electric plant works on fossil fuel. But in general, i agree. SUV:s are not a problem, the way we produce energy, manufacture and deliver our goods is.

I support making MORE energy.

You support conservation of energy, which does nothing if you don't do anything about population control.

I support conservation of energy, but only for as long as we're using fossil fuels to produce that energy. It's a for-now mean to reduce emissions. If we can produce more energy emission free (and hopefully also otherwise cleanly and safely etc.), i'm all for it.

[Gillvane]

I haven't studied Cap and Trade much, but i do not think it works the way you describe. It's not a matter of punishing big factories and rewarding small ones, but rather punishing inefficient factories and rewarding efficient ones. Efficiency in this case is a ratio between used energy and carbon emissions - a carbon efficient factory can use a lot of energy but produces low emissions.



Both are. And the solution to one will likely help with the other...



Make that oil, but also coal etc. fossil fuels and we agree.



That of course is only true if the electric plant works on fossil fuel. But in general, i agree. SUV:s are not a problem, the way we produce energy, manufacture and deliver our goods is.



I support conservation of energy, but only for as long as we're using fossil fuels to produce that energy. It's a for-now mean to reduce emissions. If we can produce more energy emission free (and hopefully also otherwise cleanly and safely etc.), i'm all for it.

We're close. We do have common ground.

Let's concentrate on replacing oil first. Why? Politics.

Oil supports terrorism. Plus, it's bad for the economy since it's susceptible to spikes, again due to politics.

Coal, while still producing the Co2 you don't like, is not as problematic since it doesn't tend to fund radical religious terrorism, and isn't as susceptible to wild swings in prices.

Natural gas isn't as bad for the environment as oil or gas. You still get Co2, but no real pollution. You can't really consider Co2 "pollution" IMO, unless you want to say you're breathing pollution out of your nose right now, or you want to say that plants can't live without pollution.

But, we'll end up with the same problems with coal and natural gas as with oil. It's not going to last forever.

So I'm in favor of replacing those too, but only if you BUILD alternatives, not create corrupt programs to make politicians rich, or pick winners and losers in the market place, ilke banning SuV's but encouraging Hybrids.

If you want to create and energy tax, I would support it on one simple condition.

You may tax all fossil fuels if you use 100% of the money for one thing, and one thing only.

Building nuclear, solar, thermal, wind, and hydro electric plants.

No corrupt programs, no picking winners and loser in the market place, just BUILD MORE energy, and no ridiculous conservation policies.

No trying to get people to lower their thermostat in teh winter so they freeze. Instead, BUILD MORE energy so they can have a sauna in the winter if they want to.

Go positive, not negative, and it will work. Force people to freeze, and you're just being an idiot. Give people MORE energy, and it's a win for everyone.

[Halsu]

We're close. We do have common ground.

If you now accept the basic science behind AGW, i guess we do. When it comes to politics, it's much more a gray ground, open for discussion.

Natural gas isn't as bad for the environment as oil or gas. You still get Co2, but no real pollution. You can't really consider Co2 "pollution" IMO, unless you want to say you're breathing pollution out of your nose right now, or you want to say that plants can't live without pollution.

I don't think anyone except the so called "denial machine" calls CO2 pollution. It's a red herring.

So I'm in favor of replacing those too, but only if you BUILD alternatives, not create corrupt programs to make politicians rich, or pick winners and losers in the market place, ilke banning SuV's but encouraging Hybrids.

Here we still disagree to some extent: i do think we should encourage solutions that are more carbon effective and sanction solutions that are not. And i prefer economic incentives rather than legislation as the tool, whenever possible.

If you want to create and energy tax, I would support it on one simple condition.

You may tax all fossil fuels if you use 100% of the money for one thing, and one thing only.

Building nuclear, solar, thermal, wind, and hydro electric plants.

As far as i know, Cap and Trade was created as a tool to avoid taxing and too much regulation, as a tool that lets the market do the job. Not sure how well it has worked in practice though.

No corrupt programs, no picking winners and loser in the market place, just BUILD MORE energy, and no ridiculous conservation policies.

That wouldn't get rid of the existing fossil fuel power plants, so it's less than a perfect solution IMO. But as said, i'm all for building a lot of alternative energy plants. I just think the fastest way to get there is the economic incentives. If not Cap and Trade, then something else but essentially similar.

[Gillvane]

If you now accept the basic science behind AGW, i guess we do. When it comes to politics, it's much more a gray ground, open for discussion.



I don't think anyone except the so called "denial machine" calls CO2 pollution. It's a red herring.



Here we still disagree to some extent: i do think we should encourage solutions that are more carbon effective and sanction solutions that are not. And i prefer economic incentives rather than legislation as the tool, whenever possible.



As far as i know, Cap and Trade was created as a tool to avoid taxing and too much regulation, as a tool that lets the market do the job. Not sure how well it has worked in practice though.



That wouldn't get rid of the existing fossil fuel power plants, so it's less than a perfect solution IMO. But as said, i'm all for building a lot of alternative energy plants. I just think the fastest way to get there is the economic incentives. If not Cap and Trade, then something else but essentially similar.

I do not accept that Man is a substantial contributor to climate change.

1. Everything is based on models, not experimentation. That's only good for theory, not proven science. I doubt anything you can do will change climate by more than something like .00000001 degrees. Wasting Trillions of dollars on that sort of thing is criminal.
2. Even if Man is responsible for climate change (and I don't think Man is), I do not believe you have the authority to make the decision on what temperature the Earth should be. I'm fine with warming the Earth a degree or two more. I don't see that you hve any right to lower the temperature of the Earth a degree or two.

We have common ground, because we both support alternative fuel to replace oil.

you think replacing oil is going to stop man made global warming. I think that's pure folly based on models, and you havent' show men any plan at all that is measurable with experimentation to prove you are correct.

However, I think oil is bad for the economy because of price swings, and it also funds Radical Islamic terrorism.

So we both have reasons to get off of oil, and we can find common ground there.

If you're going to insist on supporting corrupt wealth redistribution policies, then I have no common ground with you at all.

[Gillvane]

I don't think anyone except the so called "denial machine" calls CO2 pollution. It's a red herring..

It's the opposite.

People like myself that believe "man made global warming" is really an excuse for wealth redistribution have no cause to call Co2 pollution. It's a life sustaining gas that plants can't live without. It's what you breathe out of your nose as long as you live.

Liberal elements in the government want to regulate Co2 as "pollution" so they can tax you more, and waste more of your money.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/co2-pollution-now-what/

We agree that it's a red herring. Co2 is no more a pollutant than oxygen.

"pollution" should be reserved for compounds that make people, plants, or animals sick, like mercury or Carbon MONOXIDE.

[Gillvane]

As far as i know, Cap and Trade was created as a tool to avoid taxing and too much regulation, as a tool that lets the market do the job. Not sure how well it has worked in practice though.



That wouldn't get rid of the existing fossil fuel power plants, so it's less than a perfect solution IMO. But as said, i'm all for building a lot of alternative energy plants. I just think the fastest way to get there is the economic incentives. If not Cap and Trade, then something else but essentially similar.

The unintended consequences of Cap and Trade are corruption, and displaced workers, NO DECREASE IN CO2 PRODUCTION. It is wealth transfer from the first world to the third world, pure and simple:

Carbon trading schemes have tended to reward the heaviest polluters with 'windfall profits' when they are granted enough carbon credits to match historic production. Carbon trading encourages business-as-usual as expensive long-term structural changes will not be made if there is a cheaper source of carbon credits. Cheap "offset" carbon credits are frequently available from the less developed countries, where they may be generated by local polluters at the expense of local communities.[126]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Criticism


If your goal is wealth transfer, then do that. Why make up a corrupt carbon transfer scheme for it?

Green Supply Chain News: With Cap and Trade Comes Fraud and Corruption, Experts Say; the 10 Ways to Game the Carbon Market


Think about this.

Cap and trade does not produce not one watt of clean energy.

It transfers money. Nothing else.

Only building clean power plants produces clean energy.

Cap and trade does not build any clean power plants, not one.

My solution is to build clean power plants, and get rid of corruption, not make more corruption.

If you want to transfer wealth, just do it openly.

Tax company A and give the money to Company B, or tax your industrialized country, and give it to some non-industrialized nation so their corrupt leaders can buy weapons to control their citizens in non-democratic regimes. If that's your goal, go for it because that's all cap and trade does.

But dont' try to fool people with corrupt Cap and Tax policies.

[Gillvane]

As far as i know, Cap and Trade was created as a tool to avoid taxing and too much regulation, as a tool that lets the market do the job. Not sure how well it has worked in practice though.



.

That's a very ironic statement. There is no free market for carbon or carbon credits.

The "market" works on things that have a natural demand producers can supply.

There is no natural demand for carbon credits.

It's a government mandate, and can therefore never be a part of the "market".

It can only be the government picking winners and losers in the market place, and reaping huge profits which they mostly squander on projects to buy votes.

Are they using the money they make off of cap and tax build nuclear, solar, or wind power plants? Of course not.

They use it to subsidize industries that will give them campaign contributions, build bridges to nowhere, or create useless government agencies to employ people that will vote for them.

[Gillvane]

Gaming the Carbon Trading System


Michelle Chan, a Friends of the Earth campaigner, told the Wharton school that "Carbon offsets are especially prone to corruption and fraud because they involve representations that greenhouse gas emissions have occurred -- and that ultimately can't be proved.”

She adds: "You're saying, 'My emissions would have been so much, but my offsets reduced it by this much.' In many cases, the emissions reduction ... would have happened in any case. The offsets market is inherently rife with opportunities for truth stretching and outright lies.”

Chan, is the author of the May 2010 Friends of the Earth report, Ten Ways to Game the Carbon Market . The 10 "scams" the report identifies are as follows:
Boost the baselines: Industries facing carbon limits can inflate their projected emissions levels to claim a greater government allocation of carbon permits (preferably free). The report says that electric utilities in five EU countries could generate from $36 billion to $111 billion in windfall profits from 2008 to 2012 from free permits.
Ponzi carbon: As in any pyramid scheme, you pay off old investors with the proceeds from a new one, all in the absence of any authentic purchase agreements for carbon. This was reportedly Anne Sholtz's tactic. Investors filed more than $50 million in claims against her.
Sell fake carbon offset credits: This scheme involves selling investors on an offset project, often far away, that either doesn't exist or doesn't do what is claimed. Offset problems aren't always the result of fraud. Heather Rogers' recent book, Green Gone Wrong, documents the serious problems with a 2002 project that was to have planted 10,000 mango trees to offset the emissions from the British band Coldplay's album, A Rush of Blood to the Head. "Offset brokers," she wrote, "are not compelled to meet any standards, have no required inspections, project approvals or reviews, and no obligatory follow-up assessments to ensure the efficacy of the carbon remediation."
Carbon bribery: Targets of bribes could include the verifier who is supposed to measure actual carbon reductions, or an agency that issues carbon credits. Host countries are also vulnerable to accepting payments, as in the Foster case. Some verifiers also serve as consultants to those same projects, creating a potential conflict of interest.
"Carousel" fraud: In this common crime, rogue traders buy credits tax free, then charge tax to paying customers. Taxes are never paid to the government, and the traders disappear after the transaction is complete.
"Phishing" for carbon: This is the Internet-based crime described in the lead of this story. In a fraud with many variants, traders tell companies they need to re-register their permits, and then use dummy websites to steal account data.
Falsify information: Carbon offset developers need to prove "additionality," or that their projects avoided carbon emissions. They can do this by demonstrating, perhaps falsely, that the project would not have happened without the offset revenue.
'Round-trip' your carbon: In this variation of the classic tax scam, a new company is set up specifically to create carbon offsets. It then deliberately over-charges for the carbon, allowing an existing entity to claim the excess as revenue.
Recycle your carbon: Traders buy credits or permits that have already been used for a low price, then -- even though the credits or an equivalent number were supposed to be retired -- sell them anyway at a tidy profit. This crime was discovered on two European exchanges in March.
Manipulate carbon prices to enrich your business: Companies could theoretically bid up carbon prices at their trading desks, then profit in their offset divisions when a trigger price is reached and the government releases extra carbon from the strategic reserve. Variations on that reserve are elements of both the Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed the House and the Kerry-Lieberman bill pending in the Senate.
This is a sobering list – and one which is a reminder that regardless of what the law says, Cap and Trade legislation may have relatively little impact on actual carbon emissions, as thus far has been the case in Europe.

http://www.thegreensupplychain.com/n...1.php?cid=3529

[Dr. Benway]

Oil supports terrorism.

Once the Middle East oil runs out they are screwed - suck 'em dry!

[Gillvane]

Once the Middle East oil runs out they are screwed - suck 'em dry!

I agree. Totalitarian regimes can't function in a free market economy. Without some way to pump money from the ground, the ME totalitarian governments will go bankrupt.

[Halsu]

I do not accept that Man is a substantial contributor to climate change.

When it comes to science, trust the scientists, not Heartland Institute or Fox News.

1. Everything is based on models, not experimentation.

No it is not. Try and learn a little about the history of climate science. It's an old discipline, first experiments about CO2:s contribution to the atmosphere were done in the 19th century. If you take away ALL climate models, the overall picture would still be the same, just less detailed.

That's only good for theory, not proven science.

Right. Like gravity is a theory, evolution is a theory, germs are a theory and so on. You really just echo the most tired denialist arguments. I hope that's because you're just ignorant, not because you deliberately lie. For starters, in order not to repeat them blindly, you might wish to go through the most common of these "arguments" and their refutations here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I doubt anything you can do will change climate by more than something like .00000001 degrees. Wasting Trillions of dollars on that sort of thing is criminal.

It might be, if it was true. It's clearly not.

2. Even if Man is responsible for climate change (and I don't think Man is), I do not believe you have the authority to make the decision on what temperature the Earth should be. I'm fine with warming the Earth a degree or two more. I don't see that you hve any right to lower the temperature of the Earth a degree or two.

So, we have the right to warm the temperature by a few degrees, but we do not have the right to not warm the temperature by a few degrees? That's an utterly silly thing to say.

We have common ground, because we both support alternative fuel to replace oil.

Yep. But that's not much.

you think replacing oil is going to stop man made global warming. I think that's pure folly based on models, and you havent' show men any plan at all that is measurable with experimentation to prove you are correct.

What would satisfy you? There's literally thousands of pages of scientific data on the subject. Good place to start is the IPCC reports, which summarize the findings of scientists (contrary to what the denialists claim, IPCC does not do any of their own studies, models or whatever - they just make a review of the independent scientists' work around the globe). There's plenty of observational data there too.

If you're going to insist on supporting corrupt wealth redistribution policies, then I have no common ground with you at all.

Let me guess: you consider yourself a libertarian?

[Halsu]

It's the opposite.

I stand corrected - it indeed seems that EPA categorizes it as pollutant.

People like myself that believe "man made global warming" is really an excuse for wealth redistribution have no cause to call Co2 pollution. It's a life sustaining gas that plants can't live without. It's what you breathe out of your nose as long as you live.

"People like you" either lie deliberately, or are victims deliberate lies. I hope you belong to the latter class.

"pollution" should be reserved for compounds that make people, plants, or animals sick, like mercury or Carbon MONOXIDE.

Actually carbon dioxide can also make you sick or even kill you, if the concentration is high enough. But still, i agree with you, "pollutant" is a wrong term for CO2. I guess EPA had no better class to put it in.

[Halsu]

If your goal is wealth transfer, then do that. Why make up a corrupt carbon transfer scheme for it?

In that new example of yours, the "transition of wealth" went to the opposite direction than in your previous claim: towards the big businesses. Which one is it?

Green Supply Chain News: With Cap and Trade Comes Fraud and Corruption, Experts Say; the 10 Ways to Game the Carbon Market

Umm, that's a list of ten scams that are illegal, and not something unique to carbon trading: phishing, pyramid scams, tax frauds etc. Sure, criminals can misuse this system too, just like they can misuse any other economic system. It's not the system's fault, but the criminals'. It's like you're saying that making murder illegal is stupid, because some people commit murder anyway.

But dont' try to fool people with corrupt Cap and Tax policies.

Please show proof that they are corrupt. Also, please show proof that Cap and Trade laws have not reduced CO2 emissions compared to the situation without those laws.

[Halsu]

That's a very ironic statement. There is no free market for carbon or carbon credits.

The "market" works on things that have a natural demand producers can supply.

There is no natural demand for carbon credits.

You just came up with a new definition of demand. That's called shifting goal posts my friend. Tell me, what is the "natural demand" that's satisfied on the stock market? What is the product there?

[Gillvane]

You just came up with a new definition of demand. That's called shifting goal posts my friend. Tell me, what is the "natural demand" that's satisfied on the stock market? What is the product there?

The product is investments.

No government entity is forcing you to buy stocks. People buy them because they want them. Are you asking why people want to buy stocks? So they can make money when the stocks go up, or receive dividends.

It's a natural demand and supply. Companies want capital to expand their businesses, and stockholders want to give them the money to do that in return for the opportunity to make a profit.

Stock markets exist without any government forcing anyone to play in that market.

1792, a meeting of twenty four large merchants resulted into a creation of a market known as the New York Stock Exchange(NYSE). At the meeting, the merchants agreed to meet daily on Wall Street to daily trade stocks and bonds.


Who's standing around going, hey, I sure wish I could buy some carbon credits? Unless the government forces people to do it, no one is going to buy or sell a "carbon credit".

So it's very ironic you're talking about the "market" working things out.

Carbon credits have nothing to do with the "free market". There is no free market for carbon credits. They only reason they are purchased is companies are forced to buy them by the government.


IMO, a better course of action is for governments to build clean energy.

One business pays another business for a carbon credit, or one country pays someone in Africa for a carbon credit, that does not create 1 miliwatt of clean energy.

Build nuclear, solar, wind, and thermal power plants. That's a solution, not just a way for corrupt politicians to make money.


Corruption Threatens to Undermine Climate Action – Transparency International

http://risingtide.org.uk/resources/f.../carbontrading

What you're doing is creating an incentive to stay on fossil fuels forever.

Do you think the people that become billionaires trading carbon credits will ever want that market to end?

[Halsu]

Who's standing around going, hey, I sure wish I could buy some carbon credits? Unless the government forces people to do it, no one is going to buy or sell a "carbon credit".

**

Do you think the people that become billionaires trading carbon credits will ever want that market to end?

Err... can't you see that your claims are self-contradictory?

As far as the links go, i think you probably didn't actually read the sites you linked to...

When it comes to carbon credits being a market solution, that was the idea AFAIK. They were thought to be more business friendly than direct taxes and regulation. But to be honest, i think trusting the markets failed in this case. The only truly working solution would probably be strictly enforced regulation and very heavy taxing on emissions. So heavy, that it in fact would force the companies to produce the energy as carbon free as possible. Further, all fossil fuels could be taxed to the extent that they would become the last resort that was used only if all else fails.

And yep, the money gathered could be used to build more alternative energy.

...but i'm not sure if that would be good idea at all, i don't think folks would like the gas to cost $150 a gallon ;-)

[Gillvane]

Err... can't you see that your claims are self-contradictory?

As far as the links go, i think you probably didn't actually read the sites you linked to...

When it comes to carbon credits being a market solution, that was the idea AFAIK. They were thought to be more business friendly than direct taxes and regulation. But to be honest, i think trusting the markets failed in this case. The only truly working solution would probably be strictly enforced regulation and very heavy taxing on emissions. So heavy, that it in fact would force the companies to produce the energy as carbon free as possible. Further, all fossil fuels could be taxed to the extent that they would become the last resort that was used only if all else fails.

And yep, the money gathered could be used to build more alternative energy.

...but i'm not sure if that would be good idea at all, i don't think folks would like the gas to cost $150 a gallon ;-)

The problem is the money collected is not being used to produce clean energy.

NONE of it.

The money that is paid for a "carbon credit" can be used for absolutely anything. Even buying a brand new Hummer for someone.

Wealth is transferred, no clean energy is produced.

If that's the case, then carbon credits aren't about producing clean energy are they?

They're about wealth transfer.

I would support a small tax on all fossil fuels, like a penny or two a gallon on gas and similar to coal, diesel, jet fuel, etc.

It doesn't sound like much, but it would add up to billions of dollars quickly.

Use that money, 100% of it, to build solar, nuclear, and wind power plants.

That would actually produce clean energy, not just transfer wealth.

you don't force anyone not to use fossil fuel. You simply provide an alternative that's cheaper.

That's a positive way to tackle the problem, not the negative way you want to use. You don't force people to freeze in the winter to "save the earth from melting" or any rubbish like that.

You build a Nuclear, wind, or solar power plant so they can turn up the thermostat in winter to make the house like a sauna if they want to.

Positive solutions will work much better than negative solutions.

[Halsu]

The problem is the money collected is not being used to produce clean energy.

NONE of it.

That's very likely bullsh*t. I read a bit more on the subject, and it seems Kyoto actually has worked pretty well: in Europe, where all countries are in the agreement, the emissions have declined from 1990 levels. Not as much as agreed, but still significantly. In the USA, which is out of Kyoto, the emissions have increased in pretty much business-as-usual trajectory:

[cgbier]

You have, however, to add that Germany insisted on the 1990 figures. That was before the whole industry of the former GDR was dismantled, making Germany the poster child of CO2 reduction. That Dr. Kohl***, dumb as he was, was very cunning.

When you think that productive industries are only contributing about 11% to the US economy, then you really have to wonder where the high numbers come from.

***Dr. Helmut Kohl, German Chancellor from 1982-98

[Gillvane]

Very likely bullsh#t?

Ok, why don't you post links to the clean energy plants built with the carbon credit money? Because there is none?

Stopping Co2 production doesn't produce any clean energy.

It does line the pockets of corrupt politicians.



Case Example: European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)
According to Europol, about €5 billion has been lost VAT Fraud in the ETS.
http://www.transparency.ch/de/aktuel...Carbon.php?r=1

5 billion in fraud. You realize how much clean energy this could make if you used the money to actually build clean fuel plants, instead of a corrupt "carbon trading" scam?

If you can't clean up this fraud and corruption, why should the US join?

[Halsu]

Very likely bullsh#t?

Ok, why don't you post links to the clean energy plants built with the carbon credit money? Because there is none?

Because it obviously doesn't work that way. It's just an incentive to use cleaner energy - which is indeed what's been done. This causes new alternate energy to be built, and the carbon credit money flows to that direction.

Stopping Co2 production doesn't produce any clean energy.

Yes it does, because of the laws of supply and demand. You know, the market. We need energy, and if less is produced with fossil fuels, the missing amount needs to and will be be produced otherwise.

Case Example: European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)
According to Europol, about €5 billion has been lost VAT Fraud in the ETS.
http://www.transparency.ch/de/aktuel...Carbon.php?r=1

5 billion in fraud. You realize how much clean energy this could make if you used the money to actually build clean fuel plants, instead of a corrupt "carbon trading" scam?

If you can't clean up this fraud and corruption, why should the US join?

And how many billions in similar frauds and corruption OUTSIDE the carbon trading system? If you're the least bit objective, you must realize that's like saying we should end all financial systems, because all of them can be and are misused? As said, there will always be criminals. You're blaming the bank for being robbed.

[1]

...wonder where the high numbers come from

Exactly. That's a bit baffling. You'd think there's hardly anything left TO MAKE any emissions.

Well, except a few Hummers.