"Carbon credits" are worse than credit cards

[Deja Q]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit

Carbon credits are a tradable permit scheme. They provide a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by giving them a monetary value. A credit gives the owner the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide.

Shouldn't we cut the gas emissions down for all instead of giving a special few the right to "purchase", which in of itself goes against the very damn principles of fighting global warming?

[silverlib]

1. Anything can be abused...but

I bought carbon credits for my 99 minivan. I can't afford a new car, certainly not a hybrid. I could afford the $50 Terra Pass, so I feel this option is good for people like me. I've also changed all my light bulbs and am much more conscious of what I use and try to cut back in other areas as well.

Just as all governments look good on paper - even a dictatorship can be good if the dictator is good, it only takes assholes to ruin it.

[Skinner]

2. Cutting the emissions down is the *whole point* of carbon credits.

The idea of trading credits allows the economy to reduce the *overall amount* of carbon and distribute that reduction in the most economically efficient way.

The idea is to provide a set pool of available carbon credits, and then let the market decide how to distribute them. A potential polluter then can decide if it is more economically efficient to upgrade their facilities to create less pollution, or spend extra money to buy more carbon offsets. The "pool" of available credits can be gradually reduced over time, which would reduce the overall amount of emissions, while spreading the reduction around in an economically efficient way. Over time, as the pool of credits is limited, it will cost more and more for polluters to purchase them, and it becomes more expensive to pollute.

[SallyMander]

3. Excellent, succinct explanation

So many people don't understand this concept!

[drm604]

4. Great explanation.

It seems like there are a lot of DUers who really don't understand the concept of carbon credits. I wonder if we could get an article from a knowledgeable person on the front page. Has Al Gore written anything about this subject?

Maybe we need a forum on the subject. Then again, it could be overrun by the nay-sayers.

[NNadir]

11. That's the theory anyway.

It's my opinion that it doesn't actually work. Where, for instance, are the auditers? . Can we trust Sam Wyly, he who declared George W. Bush an "environmentalist" in 2000 to tell us that we are really buying "green energy" when we buy from "Green Mountain Energy?"

http://www.boycottgreenmountain.com/

I have heard carbon credits described as "indulgences." This refers to the medieval practice of commiting as many sins as one wished and then paying the church for forgiveness.

In my opinion we've had enough marketing and shell games. This problem will not be solved by appeal to markets.

It's time to act. The fact is that there are only 45 exajoules of primary energy available on this planet that are climate change gas free. Ten exajoules are hydroelectric, 30 are nuclear, and 5 are neither nuclear nor hydroelectric. This means, given that world energy demand is 470 exajoules, that it is physically impossible right now to buy enough indulgences to eliminate climate change. Today, even if everyone were wealthy, it would be physically impossible to buy enough indulgences to scratch the surface.

[noamnety]

5. Buying Indulgences

In theory. skinner's post is right - that sometimes it is more efficient to pay for a different building/car, etc, to be upgraded or built properly to start with.

In reality, though, the rich are using it as a justification for not changing their lifestyles in a way that might cause them some personal inconvenience. There is not a set pool of carbon emmissions that gets transferred around. When they have disgustingly lavish consumption habits, that adds to the destruction of the planet more than if they didn't have those consumption habits.

[greenman3610]

6. "buying indulgences'

is a right wing talking point, that is a piece with all the
personal attacks on Al Gore. You'll hear this on Sean Hannity all the
time.
If you are repeating it, you do not understand the issue, and you
are a part of the problem. It is unworthy of this forum.
The meme that the American Enterprise Institute, Dick cheney, and
Exxon Mobil would like you to internalize, is that dealing with this
problem means going back to candles and mule drawn carts.
The fact is, we will not only grow our economy, but improve lifestyles
for citizens all over the planet, by effectively dealing with climate.
For a start on the opportunities available for profitably dealing
with Climate Change, you can start with this Charlie Rose interview
with Amory Lovins:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1225.php

[noamnety]

8. "Growing the Economy"

is part of the problem, and that is NOT a rw talking point.

This is what I understand.

Buying carbon credits while wasting energy on things you don't need is not as good as living frugally while still paying for environmental improvements. I don't like the phrase "credits" because it implies a finite amount of pollution, and that's not what we have. Better to drive a hybrid, like Gore does, than to drive a gas guzzler. Better to drive a hybrid and buy "credits" like Gore does, than to not buy the credits. But better yet - reduce CONSUMPTION and nevertheless continue to pay what you can afford to help others do the same. Credits don't require the rich to reduce consumption - it puts them in an elite category where they can afford to squander whatever resources they like, because, well, they can AFFORD to pay for "credits."

But what we really need IS a change in lifestyle. There's no magic fix for endless energy consumption. That might mean maybe not horse and buggies, but at least bicycles, which are far more common in europe, as are scooters. And it might mean, if you are a landowner, having a community garden instead of a lawn, so vegetables are grown within your own community for your community, instead of being shipped back and forth around the globe before they hit your table.

"Growing the Economy" will ALWAYS require resources being dumped in and destroyed (obsoleteness as a business strategy - the iPodization of the economy). Growing the Economy, as De Clarke puts it so well, is a pyramid scheme. "any model that depends on perpetual growth for success is a pyramid scheme… finance capitalism as we know it, or indeed any capitalist model that relies on the magic of compound interest, future discounting, and evergrowing markets to snowball (illusory) profits, is a Ponzi scheme. why this isn’t obvious to everyone is a great puzzle to me… ... "

http://www.insurgentamerican.net/2007/03/20/the-essential-deanander/

(no sound on my computer, can't hear the interview you linked to, sorry)

[greenman3610]

10. then by all means read this

www.sciam.com/media/pdf/Lovinsforweb.pdf


the idea is that we can't get to that low carbon utopia in
one step, barring some kind of catastrophe that no one
wants.
You have to show people a better way, and incentivize them
to get there. Credits are an attempt to do that, and they
do have a good track record for reducing sulphur dioxide
in the 90s. That's why Kyoto was modelled on them, because
it was market based, would appeal to conservatives, and
had some evidence that it would be successful.
Obviously, the phony conservatives in the
Republican party didn't bite, but that's changing.
California's new law is calling for cap and trade, soon
the feds will come along.
They won't call the new treaty Kyoto, they'll
call it the "All American English Only Free enterprise
National Security Energy treaty", but that's fine.

[NNadir]

12. Dose it matter that Amory Lovins has been consistently wrong for decades?

The man is a fool.

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?471

It's 2007, not 2003. Where are our hydrogen hypercars?

[phantom power]

13. Really? I agree with NNadir's question: where are the auditors?

When these CO2 "caps" are exceeded, who comes in and forces them back under the limits? Who chooses which plants must shut down to meet the limits? Who has the authority to do that?

Nobody has that authority. And without that authority, it's an empty exercise.

[Dogmudgeon]

16. Where are the auditors?

(On edit: added punctuation.)

More auditors than you can shake an e-meter at.

(I know this emoticon has been abused here of late, but ... )

:evilgrin:

--p!

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Look at it this way...

Let's say I run a power plant. (I don't.)

If I clean up my act, I might actually save some money by increased efficiency, but even better, I can sell credits to my competitors, which means:

1. I get more money.
2. My competitors get additional expenses!

Is this a great incentive to "do the right thing" or what? It certainly gives me more of a competitive edge than I would have had without the credit trading.

[Skinner]

14. This is actually a really important point.

Without a system of carbon credits, the basic economic incentives with regard to pollution are like this:

1. Cleaning up your act costs money.
2. Polluting is free.

A system of carbon credits (done right) turns those incentives upside-down:

1. Cleaning up your act saves money.
2. Polluting costs money.

Like it or not, corporations are in business to make money. They will rarely do anything simply because it's the right thing to do. From an economic standpoint, polluting is pretty much a no-brainer: It's free and easy to do. But if they face a regime in which they save money (or even make money) by being clean, and lose money if they pollute, then they will make a rational economic decision to pollute less.

[phantom power]

15. It could work, but only if they can give it teeth.

If they establish a body with the authority to shut down plants, then it can work. Otherwise, not.

[razzleberry]

9. easy money has a very strong appeal

UNFCCC claims it expects 800 million tons
of 'reductions' thru 2112. Not sure what to believe.

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Statistics/index.html

Since there is essentially no limit
to what people will claim as a 'reduction',
the number could grow to be anything.

price of the sorta-related European Union reduction, EUA,
has fallen off, and for reasons kinda murky, some
projects seem to have been cancelled.
My take on that is the scam artists have to reorganize
with an expectation of lower prices.

this is the same as asking permission to print money.
It will get very ugly.

.........................
the commitment period is 2008 thru 2112.
Has the EU pledged to meet its Kyoto obligation? link please.
by pledged, something beyond ratification.

pollute all you want, buy 'reductions'