"What are carbon credits and what do they do for us?"

Jim,

We're doomed from gamma rays from a collapsing binary neutron star indeed ... have you selected a likely candidate? And if it just waits one more million years, you and I will be just fine.

I believe carbon credits were the result of "political" scientists not knowing what else to do. Greenhouse gases are an interesting item of discussion. I have one source that says 95% of the greenhouse gases come from natural water vapor, of which we can do nothing.

So like the killer asteroids, collapsing binary neutron stars, or water vapor from the oceans, it seems we're here in God's hands and can do little to affect major changes in our future in the big scheme of things. The world and universe continue to demand our awe and respect.

I think the snowmobile race contestants made a mutual agreement to split the prize.

Peace,

Gene Canavan
Prattville, Alabama
USA

***

Jim:

Two great books

1) Red Hot Lies. Amazing. Your PT Barnum analogy hit it right on the head and is in line with this book!

2) Unstoppable Global Warming. Every 2000 years.

Take care.

Greg Wilkinson
Growth Point
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
USA

***

Mr. Thompson,

Again I find myself taking time out of my day to respond to an article of yours that has disturbed me. I am referring to your article regarding carbon credits. Although I agree that not all outfits trading in credits on the open market are legitimate, but am still disheartened by your understanding of what this has led to. The discussions of "carbon trading and offsets" has brought the entire issue of greenhouse gasses to light. Articles like yours, although a little too strongly opinionated, still have us all thinking about carbon reductions. It would have been nice for a change to see you focus on the positive side of an issue, such as carbon reductions.

Let's take EPA's Climate Leaders Program for example, where participants not only are required to inventory their emissions of all greenhouse gasses, but are also required to commit to reducing those impacts. Climate Leaders Partners range from Fortune 100 corporations to small businesses and represent many industries, from manufacturers and utilities to financial institutions and retailers, with operations in all 50 states.

There are 226 Climate Leaders Partner companies. 102 Partners have publicly announced greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. 18 Partners have achieved their goals. EPA estimates that the GHG reductions by Climate Leaders Partners will prevent more than 13 million metric tons of carbon equivalents per year. These reductions are equivalent to the annual emissions of 9 million cars.The combined U.S. annual GHG emissions of Climate Leaders Partners represent more than 8% of total annual U.S. GHG emissions. Total annual revenue of Climate Leaders Partners represents 11% of the U.S. gross domestic product (2007). Nearly 50% of the organizations that partner with EPA in Climate Leaders are members of the Fortune 1000.Climate Leaders Partners have operations in all 50 states and provide more than 8 million jobs throughout the world.

Just thought I would share a view from the other side of the coin.

Michelle Hamm
Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc.
Bennington, New Hampshire
USA

---

I asked Ms. Hamm if she could provide a source that independently audits the above claims. This was her response:

"Please see the GHG registry on the Chicago climate Exchange, and at the Environmental Resource Trust Web site at http://www.ert.net/"

I'll let you, the reader, decide if this stands the test of an independent auditor.

Jim

***

Jim,

Whether one believes in global warming or not, you need to question what is really behind carbon credits and what they really do to us (not for us). Yes, we need to treat our planet with respect but are carbon credits the way to do it.

The impetus behind the Kyoto Treaty and its focus on greenhouse gases is predated by the Rio Summit chaired by Maurice Strong. Mr. Strong, a rather wealthy Canadian and past President of the Canadian International Development Agency, had a strong (no pun intended) disposition to reallocate wealth from the developed West to the lesser developed East, from the developed North to the lesser developed South. But, how to do it without raising the ire of the developed nations. The answer from the Rio Summit was the "global warming crisis" and making the West/North pay for all of the ills of industrialization, now and into the future.

Subsequently, global warming became big business, so big that you got 1500 scientists to 100% agree that it is happening. Normally, if you put 10 scientists in a room, none will agree. But 1500 all agreeing without any dissent means that either the nay sayers were not allowed in the room or that the ones attending saw the golden goose of huge grant money so kept quiet because to disagree would mean you would be cut off.

And, how can you have a real global agreement when countries such as China and India are exempt? These countries with 1/3 of the world's population and the fastest growing economies are allowed to continue spewing CO2 into the atmosphere unabated as well as pollution in many other forms (SO2, NOx, particulates etc.). Why? Because the West did it for years so now its their turn simply is not a good enough answer if one is truly concerned about global warming.

Finally, who is benefiting from carbon credits? Certainly carbon credit traders. But also lesser developed countries including China who reportedly is receiving billions of dollars in carbon credits. It is simply the mechanism to flow wealth from the West to the East, the North to the South, thus achieving Maurice Strong's dream.

It's time for the West/North to wake up to what is really happening and to insist that all countries get on board. While it will not stop the flow of wealth away from our countries to industrialize the rest of the world at the expense of our jobs and standard of living, it may slow it down.

[name withheld]
Ottawa, Canada

PS Jim, I just had to rant a little on this subject and would appreciate that if you publish my email that you do not include my name this time as I don't need the flax it will generate.

***

Jim,

I enjoyed your article about carbon credits. Credits are just another way for someone to try and make money and for another person to claim "Green" without having to do anything.

Say a paper mill burned coal to make steam for the papermaking process and for making electricity. Say this paper mill shut down and the company went out of business because it didn't get a bail out. Does that mean there are carbon credits (and NOx credits) available to sell? Since the company is now out of business can anyone claim these credits for their own? As this economic downturn eats up other companies not in line for a bail out, will those credits be available for the taking also? Maybe this recession could end up being a money making opportunity.

The answer to the riddle is switch snowmobiles.

Gerry Craig
Carthage, New York
USA

***

Jim,

I read with interest your column "What are carbon credits and what do they do for us?"

I don't claim to be a climatologist. I like to think I have some comprehension of science based on my education and experience. The acceptance of the claim that human beings are causing the planet to warm is baffling.

If policies that regard CO2 as a pollutant force us to leave some 50 years known reserves of petroleum, 120 years known reserves of natural gas, and 250 years known reserves of coal in the ground, then I fear for our future even more than I do already.

The evidence that I have seen tells me that the planet has been cooling for a decade, temperature lags CO2 (CO2 is not driving temperature), 20 times more CO2 is produced from oceans than all industrial sources, and the scientific community has many dissenters and is far from consensus on the claim that humans are causing the planet to warm. A more comprehensive examination of the topic can be found at http://patdixon.org/globalwarming.html

There seems to be widespread adoption in the corporate world of the global warming claims. Of course it is good to be responsible stewards of the environment, but I don't understand how such weak science can convince so many to accept illogical policies. I would hope that more of what's left of corporate leadership would apply a more reasoned approach based on more rigid application of science.

Patrick J Dixon
Lago Vista, Texas
USA

###

Have a comment? Send your email to jthompson@taii.com. Unless you tell us otherwise, we will assume we can use your name if we publish your letter.

A convenient shortcut: