Guyana says Kyoto Carbon Credits are a Scam

President4242

Thu Jul 12 15:54:25 -0700 2007

manage

This is the first CREDIBLE complaint I've seen about carbon credits.  Exporting pollution, well, that's the obvious one- but requiring the destruction and recreation of an already in existance carbon store is just plain silly.

Guyana says Kyoto Carbon Credits are a Scam

Uncle Entity

Thu Jul 12 16:15:30 -0700 2007

manage

Yeah, we should just pay the non-developed nations to sit around and do nothing. Kind of like a global welfare program for countries instead of citizens 'helping' their own. That's the only CREDIBLE complaint that can be made about carbon credits.

This is the first time someone has been honest enough to just demand their wealth redistrubution money for not cutting down the forests. My guess is being a Russian trained economist has given him extra insight into the global socialist plan.

Guyana says Kyoto Carbon Credits are a Scam

President4242

Thu Jul 12 17:54:33 -0700 2007

manage

Yeah, we should just pay the non-developed nations to sit around and do nothing.

Preserving a carbon sink is not doing nothing; it's actively giving up profit in exchange for environment.

Kind of like a global welfare program for countries instead of citizens 'helping' their own. That's the only CREDIBLE complaint that can be made about carbon credits.

Hmm- a growing, mature forest vs a clearcut and replanting.  Which do you think is better for the environment?  If the purpose of carbon credits is to pay people to take care of the environment, I don't see why you'd label this "welfare" unless you're just paranoid about any form of economic engineering.

This is the first time someone has been honest enough to just demand their wealth redistrubution money for not cutting down the forests. My guess is being a Russian trained economist has given him extra insight into the global socialist plan.

And that paragraph proves the paranoia.

Guyana says Kyoto Carbon Credits are a Scam

T Fluckiger

Thu Jul 12 18:33:14 -0700 2007

manage

Hmm- a growing, mature forest vs...

Wait, unless I missed something here, this is a contradiction. If the forest is growing (an increase in biomass) then it isn't mature yet, right? Besides, mature forests are carbon neutral.

T

Guyana says Kyoto Carbon Credits are a Scam

President4242

Thu Jul 12 18:42:29 -0700 2007

manage

Wait, unless I missed something here, this is a contradiction. If the forest is growing (an increase in biomass) then it isn't mature yet, right?

Not quite.  An organism this complex is either constantly growing, or dead.  A "mature" forest is one that has a full mix of ages of trees, from seeds to dead. 

Besides, mature forests are carbon neutral.

Not really- some portion of the dead material gets compacted under the forest floor, and becomes a near-permanent carbon sink. 

Well, until the forest dies off, a few million years go by, and somebody drills it for the oil. 

Or, of course, the forest dies off, massive erosion happens, and the carbon returns to the atmosphere through rotting.

Those are really the three options, and I guess in a long enough term, forests would be carbon neutral.

 

Guyana says Kyoto Carbon Credits are a Scam

Uncle Entity

Thu Jul 12 21:19:07 -0700 2007

manage

Preserving a carbon sink is not doing nothing; it's actively giving up profit in exchange for environment.

There are plenty of ways to preserve the carbon sink *and* make a profit. They are asking to get paid for doing nothing.

Hmm- a growing, mature forest vs a clearcut and replanting.? Which do you think is better for the environment?

Hmm - they don't have to clearcut. They could harvest the trees using well known methods and preserve a mature, healthy forest until the End of Days™. Or they could get tourists out to look at the pretty trees.

If the purpose of carbon credits is to pay people to take care of the environment, I don't see why you'd label this "welfare" unless you're just paranoid about any form of economic engineering.

That's not the purpose of the program. If all the businesses were to cut carbon emmissions to the fiat level there would be no market for carbon credits. As the fiat level is an unrealistic goal for most businesses and this carbon credit 'feature' is built into the system the cheap credits will come from less developed nations. A system designed to transfer wealth to the poor is generally called welfare except there's nothing that says this money will benefit poor people so its a welfare system for poor countries.

If they want to save the rain forests why don't they just be honest and tax the citizens in the industrialized nations and use the money specifically for that purpose. That's how open governments are supposed to work.

And that paragraph proves the paranoia.

As opposed to what, just blindly accepting without question.

carbon credits suck in theory

Thomas Lord

Thu Jul 12 16:21:28 -0700 2007

manage

You should find credible some basic economics.  Carbon credits work this way:

1) define a "right to use (non-100%-green) energy"

2) assert that (1) is not a "natural right" -- that, is, it is a right that exists at the pleasure of a sovereign

3) legally partition that right to create a fungible commodity out of increments of its exercise

4) establish a political and bureaucratic procedure for fixing the price of that commodity


Item (2) is morally offensive but could be a reasonable compromise, but for (4).  (4) seems unavoidable and, what dooms the whole idea to the wastecan, hopelessly inefficient.    As today's globalism demonstrates (e.g., "hey! let's just export the most polluting parts of the supply chain!") item (4) has no meaning unless item (2) is absolute.   

You can't be in favor of carbon credits unless you are endorsing the idea of a totalitarian and tyrannical world government.


-t

carbon credits suck in theory

President4242

Thu Jul 12 17:59:43 -0700 2007

manage

You can't be in favor of carbon credits unless you are endorsing the idea of a totalitarian and tyrannical world government.

We've already got a totalitarian and tyrannical world government in the existance of multinational corporations.  Might as well engineer that government to actually do something good.

Given that, this is a gaping hole in the system- they haven't developed the forest at large cost to their economy, and that's a good for everybody who breathes.   Might as well reward that behavior. 

As for 4)- well, I guess I've actually seen what an efficient bureaucracy looks like, and I can see a way to do it with carbon credits.  I'm not saying they're going to- but a bureaucracy alone does not inefficency make.

carbon credits suck in theory

Thomas Lord

Thu Jul 12 18:24:59 -0700 2007

manage

We've already got a totalitarian and tyrannical world government in the existance of multinational corporations.

No we don't.

-t

carbon credits suck in theory

President4242

Thu Jul 12 18:46:39 -0700 2007

manage

No we don't.

Then what is the free person's option in the United States to importing half of their worldly possessions, if the multinational corporations aren't totalitarian and tyrannical?  Have you TRIED to find a magnet created in the United States to buy?

True, one might say, why would a free person want to pay more for their goods?  But that's the POINT!  A free person should be free to decide other-than-optimal economic decisions as well as optimal ones.  Globalization actively prevents that through governmental policy. 

The worst one I've ever seen is the Federal US policy that schools cannot feed local farmer produce to schoolchildren without risking federal help with subsidized school lunches.

 

carbon credits suck in theory

Thomas Lord

Thu Jul 12 19:00:45 -0700 2007

manage

The worst one I've ever seen is the Federal US policy that schools cannot feed local farmer produce to schoolchildren without risking federal help with subsidized school lunches.

How is that totalitarian and tyranical?   Families can opt their children out of schools.  Districts can opt their lunch programs out of federal assistance.   Neither is an unrealistic option, just about anywhere in the U.S., although either may require some substantial changes in lifestyle choices by the communities making those choices.

In contrast, carbon credits propose that there should be a force-backed absolute ban on the consumption of non-green energy absent the suffrage of a non-democratic global sovereign.

-t

carbon credits suck in theory

Petr Mareš

Fri Jul 13 08:17:12 -0700 2007

manage

Totalitarian is:
the no-fly list,
the FBI guidelines given to universities recently (google for "FBI warns universities to watch out for spies"),
the way GWB "got elected",
the suppressing of peace protesters
the absence of propper 9/11 investigation
the possibility to be detained without proper legal process (without being told what you did) if you are "a terrorist suspect"
and zillions of other things, I am just lazy to write it down.

I am from former communist country, so believe me, USA is not a country of freedom, not even remotely.

carbon credits suck in theory

alex

Fri Jul 13 08:43:15 -0700 2007

manage

Petr, you really just lack a full understanding of the ultranationalist neospeak in play in the US.

Let's go over some things:

No-fly list: Freedom from terrorism and if you don't like it build your own airline. Free market will take care of it.
FBI guidelines for domestic spying: Freedom from terrorist neighbors and if you don't like it you're one of them aren't you?
GWB election: Clinton did it. (Somehow, we're not telling. You commie)
Suppression of protesters: Protecting freedom of speech for the super-rich. Hell, they deserve protection too.
9/11 investigation: We investigated it, it was Clinton's fault, let's make Giuliani king, he's a god.
Detentions without legal process: Military tribunals are a process, aren't they?

carbon credits suck in theory

Uncle Entity

Thu Jul 12 22:37:53 -0700 2007

manage

well, I guess I've actually seen what an efficient bureaucracy looks like

An efficient bureaucracy? You're kidding right?

I'm sure its your bureaucracy that's the efficient one...

carbon credits suck in theory

President4242

Fri Jul 13 11:41:36 -0700 2007

manage

Rather it's a portion, there's still a lot of fat in ODOT that needs to be cut.  An efficient bureaucracy is one that runs with a minimum number of human beings, an delivers swift decisions and services based on the laws as written to the public equally with no corruption, no delay, and no favoritism.

The perfect bureaucrat is a website with an expert system backing it up.

Ideally, the only complaint the public should EVER have about a bureaucracy should go to the legislators who write the laws.

If you have a complaint that can't be fixed by rewriting the rules governing the bureaucracy, then you have an inefficient bureaucracy that is better off being replaced.

Guyana says Kyoto Carbon Credits are a Scam

AB3A

Thu Jul 12 16:29:32 -0700 2007

manage

I agree that this is quite a loophole, but sadly I disagree with you that this is the first credible complaint about the Kyoto accords.  I happen to think the complaint about asymmetric treatment by demanding the US remain at ruinous levels of carbon output while heavily populated nations on the high speed development path are given a blank check are also quite valid. 

Another obvious problem: who regulates what a carbon credit is?  And what about nations that put out excessive levels of other well known greenhouse gases such as methane?  The goal of this treaty should have been reversing the trend of putting out excessive greenhouse gas. Instead, it became a back door method for dispensing foreign aid to third world countries under the guise of carbon neutrality. 

An influx of aid of that sort would be a steady source of corruption because the countries receiving the aid know that the donor countries need to dispense it.  There are few guarantees that the aid would actually accomplish anything. 

I just see this as a horrible treaty for enforced foreign aid projects with little hope of efficacy.  It has loopholes in it that one could drive the QE2 through.  This latest observation just add more fuel to the fire. 

Guyana says Kyoto Carbon Credits are a Scam

alex

Fri Jul 13 12:13:17 -0700 2007

manage

It's not really a loophole though.

Stating that you could just cut down the rainforest and replant it reaping a reward is like saying the US could game the foreign aid system by reducing our economy to that of Algeria to gain aid from the EU. It's true, but not relevant.

Should we have a program to give nations an incentive to keep rainforests? Probably. Does that have anything to do with a carbon tax? No.

Simple Solution

Morosoph

Fri Jul 13 18:13:38 -0700 2007

manage

Carbon debits could complement carbon credits. Even if they aren't going to be charged, they could count against carbon credits. Bingo! Incentives restored.

Okay, it's not exactly fair if a country destroys its rainforests before the scheme comes into place, so maybe if there is enough political will, some kind of compensation for those with larger forests could be built into the scheme, but the carbon debit must still be present for the incentives to work right.

Guyana says Kyoto Carbon Credits are a Scam

Spider

Sat Jul 14 20:17:39 -0700 2007

manage

I'm glad Guyana's Pres. criticized the Kyoto treaty.  New Zealand is a signatory to this treaty.  20% of land area is still covered by native forests (that your not allowed to touch). There are large areas of introduced pine forests (do they count?) that are cut down and re-planted.  Biggest City is only about 2mil.   We have no large industrial regions like other nations and yet I have read where we will be expected to pay huge carbon (credit) fees. Who's idea was this anyway?  There must have been one (probably green) individual to come up with this ludicrous idea. We do have a large number of "farting" cows which I believe scientists are trying to come up with something to stop these animals carrying out this nasty source of "green house" emissions. First the cows then the humans?