Why or why not?
2007-12-13 08:16:38 · 7 answers · asked by Eric R 6 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Just an excuse to get away with hypocrisy. Because it does NOTHING to effect the pollution created NOW. Planting trees will help in the future but not in the present.
2007-12-13 08:20:31 · answer #1 · answered by tooyoung2bagrannybabe 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It's great in concept. Its current implementation is highly suspect.
- It sends an even greater flow of money from most of us towards the ultra-rich. One example: speculators are buying land that has real estate and timber value, but now they can sell carbon credits after they harvest the timber. We'll all pay higher prices on goods due to the carbon offsets required to manufacture and ship everything, and those carbon credit funds flow to the rich investors. (A friend of mine is making a mint off this new market. He just bought himself a new Porsche.) We've been robbed enough over the past 7 years.
- It provides a mechanism for carbon emitters to avoid carbon reduction themselves, even if their carbon reduction would be reasonably achieveable. If we need to make maximum carbon reductions, why would we leave potential areas of reduction emitting more than is necessary?
- How can we ensure that the "reductions" they trade for are actually incremental ones, rather than activities that should happen anyway (for example, a timber company replanting an area they've just harvested)?
- The current carbon trading market has been shown to have serious issues.
If carbon cuts can be made, simply make them. Don't create a new market for fraud.
2007-12-13 17:44:58 · answer #2 · answered by J S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Carbon credits make sense for industry but for individuals they are just a way to fool one's self into thinking he is making a difference. I would like to find out about selling carbon credits. I own 113 wooded acres. That many trees must absorb a lot of carbon. If I am looking for income from my woodlot can I sell carbon credits instead of harvesting timber?
2007-12-13 20:40:40 · answer #3 · answered by winterrules 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They're a good idea for industry. For individuals - not so much.
For industry they're a way of getting carbon reductions at the lowest cost to society. A target is set, and the guys who can reduce carbon cheapest do it and sell the credits. Industry and government assure that the transactions are legitimate.
It's been proven when "SO2 credits" were used to solve the acid rain problem.
For individuals it's more a feel good thing. And wide open for fraud. I think individuals would spend their money better on conservation things they control. Like better insulation, compact fluorescent lights. programmable thermostats etc. These things not only help fight global warming, they save money.
2007-12-13 16:55:50 · answer #4 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
yes under one condition
that they are held and sold under a independent non-profit organization
no if they are used to make money by people like AL Gore and his rich friends.(what is happening now)
i would go to jail before paying a cent in carbon offsets to a environmentalist
2007-12-15 03:46:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They lessen the impact of change over the short term.
Making major changes to the manufacturing process for many companies is not feasible due to the cost, small gradual changes are more practical, this will allow that.
Hypocrisy?
The whole issue is hypocrisy. It took us over a 100 years to get here, it will take at least as long to make the necessary changes, I am afraid you and I will be dead, and gone before this get's turned around.
2007-12-13 16:26:00 · answer #6 · answered by Crusty P. Flaps 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Ever hear of Papal indulgences? Same concept. It is designed to help those, who say they care, (AL GORE) but don't want to compromise their lifestyle. It is a proven money maker designed to prey upon peoples guilt, brought on by the relentless media onslaught of codemnation. It's big business, just of a different color (green).
2007-12-13 16:33:31 · answer #7 · answered by bigdmizer 2 · 5⤊ 3⤋