Carbon Credits

[Fern]

Originally posted by: mrkun
All of you have missed this with the exception of Aluvus. The way this works is that a cap on total carbon units expendable is set for an entire nation and then the cap is lowered over time, thus reducing net carbon emissions (or any other type of emissions for that matter) for that country.

On the contrary, I think you guys are missing something.

Please answer me how, when a company which is polluting, then must pay the government money (via increase costs to their consumers) anything is achieved other than making gov coffers even fatter.

If you tell me the gov is gonna use that money to buy equipment (scrubbers or whatever) to reduce pollution and give to utilites (for ex.) I'm gonna laugh so hard I'll spit coffee all over my keyboard.

Carbon credits as sold today, use the money to plant lil' baby trees that won't soak up any real amount of carbon for many many years.

And have you ever asked yourself what was on this land before it was to cleared to make room for planting these new lil' baby trees?

If the gov wants to do something, just set standards and enforce it. yes, the consumers' costs will go up for the product as the company needs to buy new equipment, but at least we won't cycle piles of money through Washington DC. To cycle $s through DC is going to require a "big new shiny bureaucracy" and we all know what's gonna happen - a shit load of wasted money that could be far better spent on actually reducing pollution.

Fern

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The planting and maintaining forests in itself isn't a scam, that is actively offsetting CO2 output. But how much carbon emissions those trees are worth can easily be scamed, as can the value of all the research into emission reductions that such credits fund. So conceivably, one could run an on the table legitimate carbon credit operation, but I doubt anyone actually does.

And it's possible that the car dealership is trying to sell me a lemon...does that mean we should shut down all car dealerships because there is the potential for fraud? You're argument isn't about carbon credits, it's about people who might try and set up a scam based on it. Something that doesn't seem any easier with carbon credits than with any other area of the free market, and something we can deal with just like we deal with fraud in any other market. Just because you don't know how to calculate the offset amount of a tree doesn't mean it's some unknowable value.

You are arguing strawmen here. I didn't suggest shutting anyone down. And again, as I said, the trees are reasonably legitimate. Barring the company doesn't go under and the trees get wiped out by a fire or whatever, their value can be fairly accurately predicted. However, the value of the research which is funded by carbon credits is far more unpredictable than the trees, or used cars, and hence far more open to corruption.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: mrkun
All of you have missed this with the exception of Aluvus. The way this works is that a cap on total carbon units expendable is set for an entire nation and then the cap is lowered over time, thus reducing net carbon emissions (or any other type of emissions for that matter) for that country.

On the contrary, I think you guys are missing something.

Please answer me how, when a company which is polluting, then must pay the government money (via increase costs to their consumers) anything is achieved other than making gov coffers even fatter.

If you tell me the gov is gonna use that money to buy equipment (scrubbers or whatever) to reduce pollution and give to utilites (for ex.) I'm gonna laugh so hard I'll spit coffee all over my keyboard.

Carbon credits as sold today, use the money to plant lil' baby trees that won't soak up any real amount of carbon for many many years.

And have you ever asked yourself what was on this land before it was to cleared to make room for planting these new lil' baby trees?

If the gov wants to do something, just set standards and enforce it. yes, the consumers' costs will go up for the product as the company needs to buy new equipment, but at least we won't cycle piles of money through Washington DC. To cycle $s through DC is going to require a "big new shiny bureaucracy" and we all know what's gonna happen - a shit load of wasted money that could be far better spent on actually reducing pollution.

Fern

Carbon credits don't have to be that way. Sure, they could be run through the government as an offsetting measure, but the more popular idea is to allow companies who pollute less to sell their excess allowance to other companies who pollute more. That's both free market and provides a good economic incentive to reduce pollution.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The planting and maintaining forests in itself isn't a scam, that is actively offsetting CO2 output. But how much carbon emissions those trees are worth can easily be scamed, as can the value of all the research into emission reductions that such credits fund. So conceivably, one could run an on the table legitimate carbon credit operation, but I doubt anyone actually does.

And it's possible that the car dealership is trying to sell me a lemon...does that mean we should shut down all car dealerships because there is the potential for fraud? You're argument isn't about carbon credits, it's about people who might try and set up a scam based on it. Something that doesn't seem any easier with carbon credits than with any other area of the free market, and something we can deal with just like we deal with fraud in any other market. Just because you don't know how to calculate the offset amount of a tree doesn't mean it's some unknowable value.

You are arguing strawmen here. I didn't suggest shutting anyone down. And again, as I said, the trees are reasonably legitimate. Barring the company doesn't go under and the trees get wiped out by a fire or whatever, their value can be fairly actually predicted. It is the value of the research funded by carbon credits that's value is far more unpredictable than the trees, or used cars, and hence far more open to corruption.

Fine, then don't do carbon credit funded research...require real, measurable offsets. Hell, I'd be OK with removing ALL future offsets from the playing field, require immediate (or, say, within a year) measurable decreases in order to get credit.

You're the one making a strawman argument here...you seem to be suggesting that because there are bad ways to implement carbon credits, that means carbon credits as an idea are fundamentally bad.

 

[spittledip]

They may serve a good purpose, however are the "credits" used locally? Or are they used generally, in an area not being effected by that for which the credits are being purchased?

Also, it is very obvious that this concept, no matter if it is legitimate or not, is being exploited by many people, including Al Gore. There is nothing like championing for a cause that will make you millions and millions of dollars. Of course what seems obvious to me is not obvious to others as we are guessing people's motives at this point. I just think it is very suspicious. It's almost like insider trading.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: mrkun
All of you have missed this with the exception of Aluvus. The way this works is that a cap on total carbon units expendable is set for an entire nation and then the cap is lowered over time, thus reducing net carbon emissions (or any other type of emissions for that matter) for that country.

On the contrary, I think you guys are missing something.

Please answer me how, when a company which is polluting, then must pay the government money (via increase costs to their consumers) anything is achieved other than making gov coffers even fatter.

If you tell me the gov is gonna use that money to buy equipment (scrubbers or whatever) to reduce pollution and give to utilites (for ex.) I'm gonna laugh so hard I'll spit coffee all over my keyboard.

Carbon credits as sold today, use the money to plant lil' baby trees that won't soak up any real amount of carbon for many many years.

And have you ever asked yourself what was on this land before it was to cleared to make room for planting these new lil' baby trees?

If the gov wants to do something, just set standards and enforce it. yes, the consumers' costs will go up for the product as the company needs to buy new equipment, but at least we won't cycle piles of money through Washington DC. To cycle $s through DC is going to require a "big new shiny bureaucracy" and we all know what's gonna happen - a shit load of wasted money that could be far better spent on actually reducing pollution.

Fern

Yeah, that's not what carbon credits are. Sure, they could be run through the government as an offsetting measure, but the more popular idea is to allow companies who pollute less to sell their excess allowance to other companies who pollute more. That's both free market and provides a good economic incentive to reduce pollution.

If a polluting company can merely buy another companies pollution (carbon) credits and continue polluting, how is there any incentive to reduce their pollution output?

I used to work for one of the local irrigation (electric companies) districts, and when they'd build a gas-fired power plant, knowing it would exceed allowable pollution standards at various times of the year, they would just buy pollution credits from another business/industry that didn't use all they were permitted, instead of building the plant to meet all the pollution standards...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
The planting and maintaining forests in itself isn't a scam, that is actively offsetting CO2 output. But how much carbon emissions those trees are worth can easily be scamed, as can the value of all the research into emission reductions that such credits fund. So conceivably, one could run an on the table legitimate carbon credit operation, but I doubt anyone actually does.

And it's possible that the car dealership is trying to sell me a lemon...does that mean we should shut down all car dealerships because there is the potential for fraud? You're argument isn't about carbon credits, it's about people who might try and set up a scam based on it. Something that doesn't seem any easier with carbon credits than with any other area of the free market, and something we can deal with just like we deal with fraud in any other market. Just because you don't know how to calculate the offset amount of a tree doesn't mean it's some unknowable value.

You are arguing strawmen here. I didn't suggest shutting anyone down. And again, as I said, the trees are reasonably legitimate. Barring the company doesn't go under and the trees get wiped out by a fire or whatever, their value can be fairly actually predicted. It is the value of the research funded by carbon credits that's value is far more unpredictable than the trees, or used cars, and hence far more open to corruption.

Fine, then don't do carbon credit funded research...require real, measurable offsets. Hell, I'd be OK with removing ALL future offsets from the playing field, require immediate (or, say, within a year) measurable decreases in order to get credit.

You're the one making a strawman argument here...you seem to be suggesting that because there are bad ways to implement carbon credits, that means carbon credits as an idea are fundamentally bad.

No, you were the one making strawman arguments and you aren't showing any intention of stopping. I simply said I haven't seen a legitimate operation. I am not dismissing the possibly that they can exist, or even the possibly that some currently do. If you know of any, please share, I would feel good about buying some.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: mrkun
All of you have missed this with the exception of Aluvus. The way this works is that a cap on total carbon units expendable is set for an entire nation and then the cap is lowered over time, thus reducing net carbon emissions (or any other type of emissions for that matter) for that country.

On the contrary, I think you guys are missing something.

Please answer me how, when a company which is polluting, then must pay the government money (via increase costs to their consumers) anything is achieved other than making gov coffers even fatter.

If you tell me the gov is gonna use that money to buy equipment (scrubbers or whatever) to reduce pollution and give to utilites (for ex.) I'm gonna laugh so hard I'll spit coffee all over my keyboard.

Carbon credits as sold today, use the money to plant lil' baby trees that won't soak up any real amount of carbon for many many years.

And have you ever asked yourself what was on this land before it was to cleared to make room for planting these new lil' baby trees?

If the gov wants to do something, just set standards and enforce it. yes, the consumers' costs will go up for the product as the company needs to buy new equipment, but at least we won't cycle piles of money through Washington DC. To cycle $s through DC is going to require a "big new shiny bureaucracy" and we all know what's gonna happen - a shit load of wasted money that could be far better spent on actually reducing pollution.

Fern

Yeah, that's not what carbon credits are. Sure, they could be run through the government as an offsetting measure, but the more popular idea is to allow companies who pollute less to sell their excess allowance to other companies who pollute more. That's both free market and provides a good economic incentive to reduce pollution.

While the idea of rewarding the non-polluting comapny is a good one, we have still haven't reduced any pollution yet. The polluter is paying more, the non-polluter type getting subsidized by the polluter.

The model needs to be carried further. Shouldn't the polluter be spending that money on the reduction of it's pollution, instead of sending it to another company?

Now, if we wind up in a situtation where there actually is a polluting company, and it has to send money over the the other company, how the h3ll is it gonna be able to afford the pollution reduction eqiupment?

Maybe the bankers will see that the polluter can reduce costs and decide to finance it so it can afford the equipment.

But why go thru all that BS?. Just set the standards and make 'em all buy the anti-pollution equipment.

Do we really need to create another unless boutique industry whereby some credit trading firms make a crap load of money buying & selling credits (siphoning money away from the intended purpose). Just cut out the middlemen and put the money directly to the equipment etc.

IMO, Congress seems hell-bent on creating an opportunity for some traders (likely cronies and kids) to make a fortune, but add absolutely no benefit or added-value product/service (other than enriching themselves amd therefor making campaign contributions for the opportunity) to the equation.

Fern

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: mrkun
All of you have missed this with the exception of Aluvus. The way this works is that a cap on total carbon units expendable is set for an entire nation and then the cap is lowered over time, thus reducing net carbon emissions (or any other type of emissions for that matter) for that country.

On the contrary, I think you guys are missing something.

Please answer me how, when a company which is polluting, then must pay the government money (via increase costs to their consumers) anything is achieved other than making gov coffers even fatter.

If you tell me the gov is gonna use that money to buy equipment (scrubbers or whatever) to reduce pollution and give to utilites (for ex.) I'm gonna laugh so hard I'll spit coffee all over my keyboard.

Carbon credits as sold today, use the money to plant lil' baby trees that won't soak up any real amount of carbon for many many years.

And have you ever asked yourself what was on this land before it was to cleared to make room for planting these new lil' baby trees?

If the gov wants to do something, just set standards and enforce it. yes, the consumers' costs will go up for the product as the company needs to buy new equipment, but at least we won't cycle piles of money through Washington DC. To cycle $s through DC is going to require a "big new shiny bureaucracy" and we all know what's gonna happen - a shit load of wasted money that could be far better spent on actually reducing pollution.

Fern

Yeah, that's not what carbon credits are. Sure, they could be run through the government as an offsetting measure, but the more popular idea is to allow companies who pollute less to sell their excess allowance to other companies who pollute more. That's both free market and provides a good economic incentive to reduce pollution.

If a polluting company can merely buy another companies pollution (carbon) credits and continue polluting, how is there any incentive to reduce their pollution output?

I used to work for one of the local irrigation (electric companies) districts, and when they'd build a gas-fired power plant, knowing it would exceed allowable pollution standards at various times of the year, they would just buy pollution credits from another business/industry that didn't use all they were permitted, instead of building the plant to meet all the pollution standards...

Supply and demand?

Buying carbon credits isn't free, it costs the buyers money they could otherwise spend on other things. It also makes the sellers money, money they CAN use to help their business in other ways. If everyone did what you suggested, there would be way more buyers than sellers, and the price of the credits would go up...enough to make it no longer good business to buy carbon credits instead of reducing pollution.

Instead of looking at individual companies, look at the entire system. The electric company you worked for might not have been reducing their pollution, but the company they bought the credits from presumably did. It's a closed system, credits can't just be conjured out of thin air...even if everyone isn't individually meeting the standard, everyone together is averaging it out.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Actually it'd be more like beating your wife then paying someone to not beat their wife. Then they beat their wife anyway.

That's a piss poor analogy. :thumbsdown:

Carbon credits are by no means an end solution, but they can provide a practical means to encourage the desired end of implimenting cleaner technologies. Start by assuming that it's physically impossible to curtail all of the world's high level carbon uses immediately. The economies of entire nations would fail, including the U.S.

The idea is a two stage approach that, on one hand, provides economic incentives to companies that are major producers of greenhouse gasses to move to cleaner technology and, on the other hand, simultaneously provide a system in which companies that can't make such changes to cleaner systems and practices as quickly can help to underwrite the costs of these changes by those who can do so.

This helps underwrite the costs to companies that are early adopters of newer, cleaner, more expensive technology, and it provides a means to assign at least some of that cost to the those companies who are the heaviest polluters.

The only people I see questioning the concept are the same flat-earthers who deny that human contributions to global warming are a problem. :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Actually it'd be more like beating your wife then paying someone to not beat their wife. Then they beat their wife anyway.

That's a piss poor analogy. :thumbsdown:

Carbon credits are by no means an end solution, but they can provide a practical means to encourage the desired end of implimenting cleaner technologies. Start by assuming that it's physically impossible to curtail all of the world's high level carbon uses immediately. The economies of entire nations would fail, including the U.S.

The idea is a two stage approach that, on one hand, provides economic incentives to companies that are major producers of greenhouse gasses to move to cleaner technology and, on the other hand, simultaneously provide a system in which companies that can't make such changes to cleaner systems and practices as quickly can help to underwrite the costs of these changes by those who can do so.

This helps underwrite the costs to companies that are early adopters of newer, cleaner, more expensive technology, and it provides a means to assign at least some of that cost to the those companies who are the heaviest polluters.

The only people I see questioning the concept are the same flat-earthers who deny that human contributions to global warming are a problem. :roll:

We don't have to start by assuming the idea I bolded, that IS the position taken by most of the people who oppose carbon credits. They oppose many environmental protection measures for that very reason, but oddly enough, they also oppose carbon credits which is a good middle ground. So one would question just how much of their opposition to carbon credits is based on real concerns and how much of it is based on the fact that they just don't like ANY environmentalism.

Let's face it, environmentalism in general has become a really hot-button political issue for reasons that have nothing to do with science or reason. This is especially true among conservatives, who seem to view environmentalism in general as some sort of subversive communist agenda for destroying America. And even beyond that, being an environmentalist is just a pussy thing to do. Real men don't care about the environment except if they can display their mastery over it, so hunting deer is good, but saving the deer's environment is bad. I might be stretching this a little bit, but I think most people would agree that the anti-environmentalism movement has a pretty strange way of expressing its views for people who just disagree with the facts.

 

[piasabird]

No such thing as a carbon credit.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: mrkun
All of you have missed this with the exception of Aluvus. The way this works is that a cap on total carbon units expendable is set for an entire nation and then the cap is lowered over time, thus reducing net carbon emissions (or any other type of emissions for that matter) for that country.

On the contrary, I think you guys are missing something.

Please answer me how, when a company which is polluting, then must pay the government money (via increase costs to their consumers) anything is achieved other than making gov coffers even fatter.

If you tell me the gov is gonna use that money to buy equipment (scrubbers or whatever) to reduce pollution and give to utilites (for ex.) I'm gonna laugh so hard I'll spit coffee all over my keyboard.

Carbon credits as sold today, use the money to plant lil' baby trees that won't soak up any real amount of carbon for many many years.

And have you ever asked yourself what was on this land before it was to cleared to make room for planting these new lil' baby trees?

If the gov wants to do something, just set standards and enforce it. yes, the consumers' costs will go up for the product as the company needs to buy new equipment, but at least we won't cycle piles of money through Washington DC. To cycle $s through DC is going to require a "big new shiny bureaucracy" and we all know what's gonna happen - a shit load of wasted money that could be far better spent on actually reducing pollution.

Fern

Yeah, that's not what carbon credits are. Sure, they could be run through the government as an offsetting measure, but the more popular idea is to allow companies who pollute less to sell their excess allowance to other companies who pollute more. That's both free market and provides a good economic incentive to reduce pollution.

While the idea of rewarding the non-polluting comapny is a good one, we have still haven't reduced any pollution yet. The polluter is paying more, the non-polluter type getting subsidized by the polluter.

The model needs to be carried further. Shouldn't the polluter be spending that money on the reduction of it's pollution, instead of sending it to another company?

Now, if we wind up in a situtation where there actually is a polluting company, and it has to send money over the the other company, how the h3ll is it gonna be able to afford the pollution reduction eqiupment?

Maybe the bankers will see that the polluter can reduce costs and decide to finance it so it can afford the equipment.

But why go thru all that BS?. Just set the standards and make 'em all buy the anti-pollution equipment.

Do we really need to create another unless boutique industry whereby some credit trading firms make a crap load of money buying & selling credits (siphoning money away from the intended purpose). Just cut out the middlemen and put the money directly to the equipment etc.

IMO, Congress seems hell-bent on creating an opportunity for some traders (likely cronies and kids) to make a fortune, but add absolutely no benefit or added-value product/service (other than enriching themselves amd therefor making campaign contributions for the opportunity) to the equation.

Fern

Fern

Carbon credits go along with standards. You set average standards per company, and over time you raise those standards (allow less pollution). The point is that carbon credits allow you to effectively set global standards for the entire country instead of setting individual standards for every company.

And we need to do it that way, and I would imagine you of all people would understand why. I'm a liberal for crying out loud, and *I* don't think you can change reality simply by having government legislate a certain way. You can set standards for every company until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that you'll either have to be too lax or you'll end up killing a few companies off. All companies are not created equal, some will have an easier time reducing pollution than others will. Creating a business that works with reality instead of ignoring the folks who do a good job and trying to browbeat the companies having a hard time seems like a good idea...and it seems perfectly in keeping with the kind of free market model conservative should love.

It's the free market, what's wrong with creating an opportunity for profit? Again, you're a freaking conservative, and so are most people who oppose carbon credits...doesn't it seem strange that you're opposing something that would apply the same free market principles to pollution that you champion everywhere else? Pollution is a cost of doing business, it doesn't seem wrong to help create opportunities to apply the free market to pollution costs. I cannot believe I'm really arguing with a conservative who thinks a better solution than allowing the market to help figure it out would be to just have the government force everyone to do the same thing.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: piasabird
No such thing as a carbon credit.

Honest to God, your bumper sticker philosophy really isn't as insightful as you think it is. Mostly, it makes you look like the guy at a party who doesn't understand the topic but wants to act like he's part of the conversation.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: piasabird
No such thing as a carbon credit.

Honest to God, your bumper sticker philosophy really isn't as insightful as you think it is. Mostly, it makes you look like the guy at a party who doesn't understand the topic but wants to act like he's part of the conversation.

To a point he's right. All a carbon credit amounts to is selling your pollution rights to another company to allow them to pollute more than the set standards allow.

Say you drive a Hummer. The carbon standards set minimum gas mileage at 20 MPG, but your Hummer only gets 15. Joe drives a Prius. He gets 45 MPG, so he has 25 MPG worth of carbon credits. He can sell them to you, allowing you to continue to drive your Hummer that gets less mileage than you have carbon credits for, he doesn't lose anything since he's already well within compliance and he makes some $$$ along the way.
Does that do anything to reduce pollution? No, since no actual pollution was removed, just a few carbon credits were shuffled around.

(yeah, I realize this is grossly oversimplified, but it represents the basis of the process)

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: piasabird
No such thing as a carbon credit.

Honest to God, your bumper sticker philosophy really isn't as insightful as you think it is. Mostly, it makes you look like the guy at a party who doesn't understand the topic but wants to act like he's part of the conversation.

To a point he's right. All a carbon credit amounts to is selling your pollution rights to another company to allow them to pollute more than the set standards allow.

Say you drive a Hummer. The carbon standards set minimum gas mileage at 20 MPG, but your Hummer only gets 15. Joe drives a Prius. He gets 45 MPG, so he has 25 MPG worth of carbon credits. He can sell them to you, allowing you to continue to drive your Hummer that gets less mileage than you have carbon credits for, he doesn't lose anything since he's already well within compliance and he makes some $$$ along the way.
Does that do anything to reduce pollution? No, since no actual pollution was removed, just a few carbon credits were shuffled around.

(yeah, I realize this is grossly oversimplified, but it represents the basis of the process)

Initially, of course nothing happens. Over time though since it is more expensive to operate the more polluting vehicle, there will be a shift toward more fuel efficient cars.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: piasabird
No such thing as a carbon credit.

Honest to God, your bumper sticker philosophy really isn't as insightful as you think it is. Mostly, it makes you look like the guy at a party who doesn't understand the topic but wants to act like he's part of the conversation.

To a point he's right. All a carbon credit amounts to is selling your pollution rights to another company to allow them to pollute more than the set standards allow.

That makes no sense...a carbon credit is exactly what you're saying it is...so how is it that it "doesn't exist"?

Say you drive a Hummer. The carbon standards set minimum gas mileage at 20 MPG, but your Hummer only gets 15. Joe drives a Prius. He gets 45 MPG, so he has 25 MPG worth of carbon credits. He can sell them to you, allowing you to continue to drive your Hummer that gets less mileage than you have carbon credits for, he doesn't lose anything since he's already well within compliance and he makes some $$$ along the way.
Does that do anything to reduce pollution? No, since no actual pollution was removed, just a few carbon credits were shuffled around.

(yeah, I realize this is grossly oversimplified, but it represents the basis of the process)

You're assuming that everyone will drive Hummers or Priuses at exactly the same rate with or without the credits. Joe might have been planning on buying a Prius anyways, so allowing him to see his excess gas mileage is just a bonus for him. But what about for folks who wouldn't have gotten a Prius before, but will now because they can make money doing so? The point of carbon credits is to influence decision making down the line, it doesn't work if you just focus on exactly how things are right this second.

And of course there are the folks on the other side. Because if we're going to reduce pollution by setting gas mileage standards, NOBODY gets to buy a Hummer, or a pickup truck, or an SUV...and that includes people who really would benefit from having an SUV or a pickup truck (nobody in this country NEEDS a Hummer). If we just set a minimum gas mileage standard, we hurt the folks who really would be better off using less efficient vehicles, and we provide no incentive to get 1 MPG more than 20. If we allow buying and selling of excess MPG ratings, we allow the folks who really need one to buy a less efficient vehicle, and we provide a good reason for the rest of the folks to buy a Prius.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: piasabird
No such thing as a carbon credit.

Nonsense. Blasphemy! :laugh:

I've got some left over Carbon Credits...want to purchase them? Come on...think of the kids. And the earth...

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You're assuming that everyone will drive Hummers or Priuses at exactly the same rate with or without the credits. Joe might have been planning on buying a Prius anyways, so allowing him to see his excess gas mileage is just a bonus for him. But what about for folks who wouldn't have gotten a Prius before, but will now because they can make money doing so? The point of carbon credits is to influence decision making down the line, it doesn't work if you just focus on exactly how things are right this second.

And of course there are the folks on the other side. Because if we're going to reduce pollution by setting gas mileage standards, NOBODY gets to buy a Hummer, or a pickup truck, or an SUV...and that includes people who really would benefit from having an SUV or a pickup truck (nobody in this country NEEDS a Hummer). If we just set a minimum gas mileage standard, we hurt the folks who really would be better off using less efficient vehicles, and we provide no incentive to get 1 MPG more than 20. If we allow buying and selling of excess MPG ratings, we allow the folks who really need one to buy a less efficient vehicle, and we provide a good reason for the rest of the folks to buy a Prius.

I DID say it was oversimplified, but, everyone doesn't have to drive one or the other for it to be applicable, nor does it factor what Joe MIGHt have been planning to buy. What it deals with is what's going on right now.
People who have a legitimate need for a pick-up or SUV might be able to buy the carbon credits necessary to own such vehicles. (I'm not one of the anti-SUV tree-huggers BTW, I own one) However, such legitimate need might not include soccer moms or commuters who WANT one but don't NEED one. If you want to own an F-150 or F-250, or an Expedition, Yukon, Suburban, or whatever, but don't meet the requirements of "NEED" you could still do so, but you might pay a higher carbon offset fee.
Joe who owns the Prius COULD sell you his unused carbon credits if he chooses to, OR he could sell them to the Chevron Refinery down the road. It'd be up to him who he sold them to. I'm sure the free market everyone raves about would set the value of such unused carbon credits...
Can you just imagine...being able to sell your unused carbon credits for enough to pay for that new Prius?

I stick by the idea that selling carbon credits or pollution credits is a bad thing. Instead, let's require the dirty industries to clean up their operations enough so that they don't exceed the standards without having to buy carbon credits...

 

[palehorse]

Unless you consider making folks like Al Gore laugh all the way to the bank, a "point," then yes, they're absolutely pointless.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You're assuming that everyone will drive Hummers or Priuses at exactly the same rate with or without the credits. Joe might have been planning on buying a Prius anyways, so allowing him to see his excess gas mileage is just a bonus for him. But what about for folks who wouldn't have gotten a Prius before, but will now because they can make money doing so? The point of carbon credits is to influence decision making down the line, it doesn't work if you just focus on exactly how things are right this second.

And of course there are the folks on the other side. Because if we're going to reduce pollution by setting gas mileage standards, NOBODY gets to buy a Hummer, or a pickup truck, or an SUV...and that includes people who really would benefit from having an SUV or a pickup truck (nobody in this country NEEDS a Hummer). If we just set a minimum gas mileage standard, we hurt the folks who really would be better off using less efficient vehicles, and we provide no incentive to get 1 MPG more than 20. If we allow buying and selling of excess MPG ratings, we allow the folks who really need one to buy a less efficient vehicle, and we provide a good reason for the rest of the folks to buy a Prius.

I DID say it was oversimplified, but, everyone doesn't have to drive one or the other for it to be applicable, nor does it factor what Joe MIGHt have been planning to buy. What it deals with is what's going on right now.
People who have a legitimate need for a pick-up or SUV might be able to buy the carbon credits necessary to own such vehicles. (I'm not one of the anti-SUV tree-huggers BTW, I own one) However, such legitimate need might not include soccer moms or commuters who WANT one but don't NEED one. If you want to own an F-150 or F-250, or an Expedition, Yukon, Suburban, or whatever, but don't meet the requirements of "NEED" you could still do so, but you might pay a higher carbon offset fee.
Joe who owns the Prius COULD sell you his unused carbon credits if he chooses to, OR he could sell them to the Chevron Refinery down the road. It'd be up to him who he sold them to. I'm sure the free market everyone raves about would set the value of such unused carbon credits...
Can you just imagine...being able to sell your unused carbon credits for enough to pay for that new Prius?

I'm confused, it sounds like you're making an argument FOR carbon credits. If we just had high MPG standards that had to be met, nobody at all could own an SUV.

I stick by the idea that selling carbon credits or pollution credits is a bad thing. Instead, let's require the dirty industries to clean up their operations enough so that they don't exceed the standards without having to buy carbon credits...

That would be great, if all industries were exactly the same and if cleaning up their operations were as simple as flipping a switch. But in the real world, some companies pollute more than others, and trying to force them all into the same standards is just going to be too easy for some companies and too difficult for others. What carbon credits allow is exactly the same results while allowing the market to set some flexibility on just exactly how much every individual company can pollute. That's the key point here, with a good carbon credit system, the overall pollution is EXACTLY THE SAME as if you just applied standards equally to every company. You don't give up anything at all, you just allow some flexibility on who exactly is doing the polluting. I can't for the life of me see why this is a bad thing.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Unless you consider making folks like Al Gore laugh all the way to the bank a "point," then yes, they're absolutely pointless.

That's just a real solid argument there chief, you really turned me around on this issue. :roll:

Honestly, if you don't have a decent argument to make, could you possibly just keep it to yourself? Don't get me wrong, we're all rolling on the floor from your hilarious lines you got from The O'Reilly Factor, but an actual argument wouldn't be totally out of line.

Seriously, forget for a second that you're a goose-stepping conservative jackass and I'm a lilly-livered liberal communist and pretend we're having an honest debate. Stop trying to get in the mandatory shot at Al Gore (for what it's worth, I think he's a tool) and stop trying to impress folks like Pabster who already agree with you (and like THAT isn't a big enough warning sign) and make a God damned argument.

It's like a lost art around here, everyone is just so interested in throwing out their focus group tested political bullshit as fast as possible that nobody seems to remember that you're not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. I honestly like carbon credits, not because Al Gore told me or because it's a liberal issue, but because I've looked at the arguments and think it's a good idea. If someone makes a better argument against them, I'll change my mind. And I hope I'm doing a good enough job explaining WHY I support them that someone who's on the fence just might change THEIR mind. I think it's an interesting issue worthy of debate, and I would really prefer if folks like you would contribute (I'm sure you have some intelligent things to say about this) instead of going around spraying Bill O'Reilly stink all over everything.

 

[Ozoned]

If we plant enough trees, coal could be a renewable resource that provides its own fertilizer.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I'm confused, it sounds like you're making an argument FOR carbon credits. If we just had high MPG standards that had to be met, nobody at all could own an SUV.

Nah, just making the comparison...I would seriously like to see MPG requirements doubled. There's no freakin reason cars today can't get 40 MPG+. Maybe the technology isn't there yet, but I doubt it. We've all heard thr rumors about oil companies buying the patents and rights of products designed to wring more mileage out of a gallon of gas...if even half of them are true, then it's time to wring them out of the oil companies for the good of America...(not that I believe it would ever happen...even if it IS true)
Do my wife and I NEED our Expedition 4X4? Nope. At the time we bought it, we were planning a move to Wyoming, where it would be very useful...but here in Kahleeforneeya? It's just another Environment Killer. Unfortunately, the resale on them is so bad that I can't get enough out of it to justify selling it, so I'll just keep it and drive it less.
My point about raising MPG and SUV's is that far too many people like us own them but don't NEED them. Same with pick-up trucks. Maybe part of the solution would be to allocate them to people who can demonstrate a NEED. Farmers, construction companies, handymen, anyone who depends on a truck to perform his/her job...The rest of us who just WANT a truck because....(I'm a MAN, I NEED a TRUCK! I don't fit in cars! Fuck you, I'm gonna drive what I WANT)...well, since pick-ups neither meet the safety standards of passenger cars nor meet the current CAFE standards, maybe they should be taken out of general public sale...(I don't like the idea, but it WOULD help increase overall gas mileage averages)

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That would be great, if all industries were exactly the same and if cleaning up their operations were as simple as flipping a switch. But in the real world, some companies pollute more than others, and trying to force them all into the same standards is just going to be too easy for some companies and too difficult for others. What carbon credits allow is exactly the same results while allowing the market to set some flexibility on just exactly how much every individual company can pollute. That's the key point here, with a good carbon credit system, the overall pollution is EXACTLY THE SAME as if you just applied standards equally to every company. You don't give up anything at all, you just allow some flexibility on who exactly is doing the polluting. I can't for the life of me see why this is a bad thing.

The whole point is to reduce pollution, NOT to spread it around...If Company "A" is allowed to buy Company "b"'s carbon credits without cleaning up their operation, then nothing is really gained. Presumably Company "B" is a low-polluting company already, so there's no gain except that they make some $$ on the sale of the carbon credits.
Reducing the pollution output of Company "A" would be far better than allowing them to pay a premium to continue to pollute as they always have.
Perhaps tieing the right to purchase carbon credits could be tied in to a planned clean-up program...reduce emisions by 10%, get to buy 10 tons of carbon credit...reduce emissions by 25%, you get to buy 25 tons of credits...eventually, a company might clean up enough that they wouldn't need to buy the offsets.

NO, all companies are not alike. I agree some will naturally pollute more than others. Obviously, not all companies would be required to meet exactly the same standards in all areas...BUT, some standards, regardless of the industry should continually be reduced. (CFC's, toxic chemicals, etc.)
I've worked too many HAZMAT clean-ups over the years to have anything BUT a hard-line attitude over polluters. I remember the years before the first Earth Day, I remember Love Canal, I remember the Cuyahoga River catching on fire...a fucking river on fire! I remember seeing all the suds in waterways before phosphates were eliminated from things like laundry soaps...
Having worked in Maritime Construction for many years, I've seen some of the crap (literally) that gets dumped into our waterways yet today. Most major cities have sewer outfalls that pipe the effluent from the sewage plants into lakes, rivers, and our oceans...granted, the waste has been cleaned somewhat, but it's still filthy..and it takes a toll on our waterways...


Dammit! now you got me talking like some tree-hugging hippie!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I stick by the idea that selling carbon credits or pollution credits is a bad thing. Instead, let's require the dirty industries to clean up their operations enough so that they don't exceed the standards without having to buy carbon credits...

:thumbsup: