Carbon Offset Cash-In Questioned

New Scientist ^ | 5-13-2007

[blam]

Carbon offset cash-in questioned

10:00 13 May 2007
NewScientist.com news service

Some firms are making a killing from schemes designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions, while doing little or nothing in return.

The market in carbon offsets, which allows companies to invest in renewable energy as a way of mitigating their own greenhouse gas emissions - almost doubled in 2006 to $5 billion, the World Bank said on 2 May. According to a recent report in the London-based Financial Times, some of that money is going to oil companies that are simply pumping CO2 into oilfields to extract more oil. They would have done this anyway, so profits from selling the credits go straight into company coffers, with no benefit to new carbon-saving schemes.

"Oil companies are earning credits by doing what they would have done anyway" And under the Kyoto protocol, almost $5 billion will be paid to industries that cut emissions of trifluoromethane - a potent greenhouse gas created in the production of refrigerants. The technology required to cut the gases would cost just $100 million to install (Nature, vol 445, p 595), raising questions regarding the size of the payout.

[tioga]

Psst. It’s a money making scam, pass it on.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

I sense the presence of al oGre!

[capydick]

with no benefit to new carbon-saving schemes.

If it's a scheme - why would you look for a benefit? Unless, of course, you're the person who is collecting the monies from the scheme.

[Calpernia]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1775002/posts
Trading Hot Air?

Note from thread:

Excerpt:

China appears to be flooding the carbon trading market with certified emission reductions (CERs) or carbon credits, which are priced lower than those of Indian projects. This is because China has much higher volumes of CERs in the world market compared to India. Each CER represents one tonne of carbon dioxide emission reduction.

As per annual averages, China now accounts for 43 per cent of total CERs registered at the UN, while India accounts for 12.11 per cent. Chinese projects can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 36.66 million tonnes per year till 2012, while Indian projects would reduce about 10.17 million tonnes.

[MaxMax]

Pet Rock anybody?

[Red6]

Say it isn’t so- lol

[originalbuckeye]

Another plastic-banana, good time rock and roll bottomless pit of cash to benefit Liberals. Their hypocrisy just slays me!

[Sawdring]

It is like selling land on the moon.

[magoo70804]

Now, where did I put those damn chia pets???

[The Great RJ]

Carbon offsets are the greatest scam since the Nigerian e-mails.

[RobFromGa]

There are large corporations that own large tracts of forests. As everyone knows, forests take in CO2 and convert it to oxygen. By benefit of owning the forest, these companies get the carbon credits. It is clearly a scheme that is designed by do-gooders and for do-gooders only. There is negligible impact on carbon emmissions, even if these were a problem to begin with.

[originalbuckeye]

In an aside, did you see the SNL skit called ‘The Spammies’? It featured Kenan Thompson as the Nigerian prince behind those e-mails and some other famous Spam artists. SNL is pretty bad these days but that skit was priceless! I wish Youtube still posted SNL skits. It is definitely worth seeing again.

[Drango]

I’m selling carbon credits at 1/2 price. No checks please. FReepmail me your account number and pin and I’ll get back to you.

[Uncle Hal]

Wall Street is getting involved so you know there is money to be made. Big money.

[PJ-Comix]

The Goracle demands that you burn wood offerings to him as Carbon Offsets to prevent Global Warming. Pray to the Goracle!!!

[bannie]

This is a con $cheme for the wealthy to feel less guilty about not following the rules of life that they propose—and would like to ENFORCE—for others.

How can “the common man” ever fall for this crap???

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

$5 billion is the extent to which some Americans have lost their minds in their fanatical rush to appear “environmentally conscious”.
It’s a fake.

[Brilliant]

Figures that Al Gore would be at the center of this fraudulent industry.

[DPMD]

“Some firms are making a killing from schemes designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions,

If you massage this sentence just a bit, there comes a pretty workable description of government (or of Congress):

“They are making a killing...while doing little or nothing in return.”

[cpdiii]

Forest do not, repeat, DO NOT represent a carbon sink and it is a scam. The trees do take in CO2 and convert it to cellulose. Eventually the tree is harvested and used or simply dies and rots in the forest. If it is used it will eventually become paper, houses, boxes etc. Unless the end product is recycled it will eventually be burned are buried to rot. When it is burned or rotted, the CO2 is released again. The planting of forest is a zero sum game. It is a scam.

[heavenbound]

Depopulation = problem solved

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Well it (plating trees) is even more subtle than a blatant “scam” ...

The greenies LIKE (love ?) trees and plants over people = so NOTHING that involves “more trees” can be “bad” ...

OK. So, you’re exactly right: a single tree is carbon-neutral (what it takes it and coverts to cellulose) is simply “stored” CO2. If the tree dies naturally and decays, or is burned (forest fires and burned as firewood are equal!) the CO2 is released. If it dies and the decay products are eaten, then that material exventually decays and gets urned back into methane and CO2.

No gain. no loss. (Other than the “delay” as CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and “stored” in the wood for a few years. (This is what people “claim” is attractive about ethanol: the CO2 is immediately recycled from year-to-year as the ethanol is burned, but the ethanol that is burned is being recycled through the CO2 instead of pumping “new” carbon from the oil fields and burning it.....)

Back to trees. Or at least the theory of trees. 8<)

The greenies NOW want the trees that are “storing” today’s CO2 to be harvested and turned into wood products and lumber which will NOT be burned. That way, they claim the CO2 removed is “stored” in man-made, man-protected and painted status for many years (houses may last 50-150 years) and so they consider the lumber (and plastic ?) to be “removed” from the yearly CO2 emissions.

So. Lumber = good. Forests = bad.
Wildfires = (now) bad. Controlled burns = Good.
Farmland = Bad. Suburbs = Good.
Paper and plastic ????? vice newsprint and kraft paper?

[cpdiii]

There are only two natural carbon sinks operating in the world. The first is the creation of limestone (CaCO3) and the the sedimentation of rivers. Algae and certain mollusks will take CO2 and combine it with CA and form carbonate banks which become limestone. This takes the CO2 out of the atmosphere. When rivers deposit silts laden with organics this also takes CO2 out of the air. That is provided the sediment load is buried and not recycled.

Also according to my precise calculations if Al Gore was recycled it would have a significant effect on our total balance of payments and might well save humanity! Al Gore is the ULTIMATE CARBON SINK. :) :) :)
/Sarcasm.