No, it's the schemes and wealth transfers that have some of us saying "eat it".
Buying carbon credits, is tantamount to me saying I don't have to diet. I can pay some kid in Ethiopia to go without dinner so I can eat all I want.
U.S. summer a global warming preview, scientists say
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Buying carbon credits, is tantamount to me saying I don't have to diet. I can pay some kid in Ethiopia to go without dinner so I can eat all I want.
One thing that might make you think this through a little deeper is that there is Ford Motor Plant in the UK (at Davenport, I believe) that is entirely powered by wind power. There is also a surplus from that thet goes into the grid.
It can be done and a lot more easily than some think. It needs only political will and pressure.
China did indeed sign on to Kyoto and has done already far more than Kyoto demanded of it. The only major nation that did not sign on was the USA. The only nation to back out of its commitments is Canada.Is China going to? India?
Kyoto was a disaster and China never did sign on did they? They said they would.
No wonder why Canada did an about face this time. They didn't feel like playing the sucker again.
No they're not. Again you are touting the party line. EVERYONE knows that without China reducing emmisions the US will NEVER reduce them. Everyone knows that China will never cave in to you people. So the GWers try and say that China is ahead of everyone and give them a Developing Nation status. The GWers need to save face with China as China simply smiles, nods, and says No.
Do they now?
FEAR
China is far ahead of many committed nations in its reduction strategies.
And, I posted the evidence for that.
As is India.
I don't think that is a fair analogy of what a carbon credit is going to do. Let's keep it to energy so that the stretch isn't too much. If you want to continue to use the same amount of fossil fuel derived energy you would pay someone else to either cut back on their use or you would help fund a non carbon derived source. You should keep in mind that you ha ve the option of cutting back on your use, through conservation and efficiency or by producing your own energy at a reduced rate of carbon consumption or pollution.
Just for sh!ts and giggles, I just did a little digging, and found this...
The gigatonne gap in China/'s carbon dioxide inventories : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group
Something tells me, that China is fudging numbers.
And you would be wrong.
There's a reason why I chose food for my analogy. It is energy, we consume it.
Good find, but to play devil's advocate, I believe that China's status as a developing nation also entitles them to 'develop' their own statistical data sets and maybe some new math with which to apply it.
It's a small print clause that is not generally referred too, but part of Kyoto all the same
I'm still trying to reconcile myself to the fact that a developing nation has a space program.
You did read the post I made earlier? China installed 37 GWs of carbon neutral energy in 2009 and has installed far more than that since.
Do you know just how much power that is? Compare it with Canada's total.
And remember that, under Kyoto, China had no obligation to do anything of that nature before the new agreements that would be reached in 2012. Th new agreements that Canada sabotaged.
I did. I can't find any links to the pertinent data.
Can you post the links again for me please.
It is entirely possible that the estimate is correct. However, that is neither here nor there wrt the obligations. It is also based on 2009 figures that predate the 2012 2nd round of Kyoto negotiations. China, under Kyoto, was obligated to make inventories of those emissions, not to reduce them.
A new agreement would have set targets following 2012 if the state of China was such that it could no longer have developing status. China made offers but Harper refused.
The link is in Post #226. Enbedded in that link is one to the source.
Well then, I guess this...
Was a pretty disingenuous claim. In the context of ES's commentary.
Irrelevant. China isn't a developing nation. They are the single greatest emitter of GHG's, and if I do further digging, I bet other pollutants as well.
I'm not searching through your links, links.
Just post the link.
How nice for the peeps who can afford it. For those many who would prefer to eat, what? A very elitist solution that seems to follow the sadly common pablum dished out.
I hope the sheeple do not start bailing out of the cities, stay there, trust me it's a better place than out here in the savage wilderness.
btw, has anyone ever been able to decisively outline where the money from "carbon credits" has gone in Canada, other than general revenue? Well they kinda have.......
BC: The Pacific Carbon Trust Must Go! | Canadian Taxpayers Federation
LMAO.
China was given a Developing Nation Status. Sure they signed it. Basically Kyoto told China they can carry on as usual. After Kyoto China was no more obligated to abide by the emissions caps than the US was.
Below... the light gray signifies the nations who didn't sign OR did sign and were exempt. Do you see any difference between China and the US?
NOPE.
Proven science. The Climate is changing. Well no kidding Sherlock. It always has changed. No amount of money changing hands is going to stop the climate from changing anymore than we can stop platetonics.
Nor does the US or Canada. Roll that up and smoke it.
I wonder why they give the GW crowd the bird each time.