Money Forum World

Todd Burris · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 2167

Is carbon trading the modern equivalent of Papal Indulgences.?
In days gone purchase, people could purchase reductions in the time they could use up it pergatury by making donations to a specific order. A cleric could assess the donation and issue a certification to the donor saying how many days their time in purgatory could be reduced by. Great for people who lead sinful lives wanting to decrease their suffering in the next life.

This looks to have some parallels with carbon trading. In hypothesis, you may be able to still drive to work if you pay someone else to take public transport in your interest, but the industy is completely self regulated. People send money to which ever carbon offshoot services has the best marketing and they get a certification with picture of trees and a declaration of how much CO2 reduction youve bought.

Issac Lindsay · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 2082

Awesome analogy . I never thought of that one.

The hypothesis behind it isn't quite as vapid as that. The ideas of carbon reduction and offsetting date back to the era when the buzzword wasn't climate change but pollution.

Pollution has a cost, but that cost isn't felt now. Its usually been cured rather than prevented. When pollution became a front page issue, economists suggested that it may be better prevented by levying taxes and / or penalties on polluters and / or buyers. These days its all about your carbon footprint. Whatever.

Anyway, now the international approach is to set particular objectives on national levels, like, Country X shall cut its carbon emissions by 15% by the year 2012. Since the effect is world, although, its really only the global total that must be reduced. if one country can manage to surpass its objectives, then another country can pay for to fall a little short. If Country X knows that it'll beat its goal by five points, then it can sell those points to another country. Then you have the whole market produced in the carbon emissions trade.

Ideally, its a win win situation. It supports some countries usually the 1st world to find cleaner and more economical resources of energy, so that they can trade their credits for whatever good favors they can get for it. Hot brides from Moldova, or whatever . The market also lets other countries usually the 2nd world to purchase these credits so they can continue developing as industrial nations. Countries like India and China aren't as worried about world weather as they're about developing their economies .

Somehow, this became the hot new trend among image conscious 21st century celebrities, who then decided that it was good for their image to offshoot their carbon emissions too. Like its going to make any difference. Fart once, inhale twice. So now, youre right, we have these carbon offshoot services that you talked about.

Usually, your carbon is offset by planting a tree, which will take in CO2 and release oxygen. While its alive. But what happens when the tree dies? Yep. There goes all that greenhouse gas back into the atmosphere again.

But hey, if it makes people feel better, then there you go . papal indulgences indeed.

Lucia Chow · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 2092

Yes, that does make a good correlation. Both present ways to atone for ones sins.

Back in those days a consensus of Papal scientist believed this is the was heaven worked. that's enough to prove that it had to be true.

Bryant Johns · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 2167

That is a great and fitting analogy. They adopted the current variant of the world is going to end in my lifetime that's generally taken up by some religious extremists. What is funny is that they, overall, dont like religion and dont recognize that they're practicing members in the cult of world Warming.

Tom Grant · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 2121

Sounds like a school mate of mine who wants us to baptise him every week because we were told that baptism cleanses your soul of all sins. In this respect I think they're both theorectically the same.

Delores Humphrey · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 2106

In a word, Yep.

Its an excellent analogy because both examples are depending on a premise of ignorance and dupability.

For those of us humans born short in the brain cell department it sounds encouraging to think that world warming is being contained with carbon credits.

Corporations and economists love the system. Accountants who understand debits and credits, not so much.

The way it works is the credits are depending on net production.
If you produce 100 widgets with one ton of carbon emissions now and next year you produce 200 widgets with 1.5 tons of carbon emissions youve earned a carbon credit of .5 tons because you doubled your production but only increased your pollution by half.

Hmmmmmm, more economical yes.

Only one problem nobody Not the polluters and surely not the governments wants to talk about is, POLLUTION STILL WENT UP BY A HALF TON and our atmosphere remains constant.

Last time I checked anyways.

So, what do you think is going to happen with this carbon trading scheme if all those polluters keep on to get more efficient?

Yep. Its true. Soon well be so rich that we wont be able to breath anymore and theres gonna be a whole whack of new beach front property comming on the market.

What can you do?

Well, for one you may be able to stop driving that holier than thou fossil fuel burning four tired interior combustion external polluting beast you say you cant live without your car.

Each beast adds five tons of pollutants to our restricted air supply per year.

The other thing you may be able to do is contact your government at EVERY level at least ONCE a day and tell them you want laws that shut down pollution. You know, end it as in businesses that pollute are shut down.

The science is there to do nearly everything we now do with fossil fuels and the only reason fossil fuels continue to be used is so a restricted group can continue to make big profits.

So, if not for yourself how about for all the kids of the world who may never grow old if we dont stop now.

The clock is ticking...

Denver · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 2173

A good analogy and there are indeed many similarities.

Carbon trading is different to carbon offsetting. Offsetting is more a voluntary measure and is the road that and many other businesses have gone down in going carbon neutral. Trading is frequently compulsory and is a technique of imposing a cap on total emissions, it lets a company that's going to surpass its bound to purchase credits from businesses that fall short of their limitations. In hypothesis there are as many winners as there are losers, the problem is that brokers and middlemen have set themselves up as intermediaries and are taking a disproportionate slice of the money and some of them are doing nicely from these schemes.

A better idea is to do it yourself, it only costs some cents to plant a tree and you may be able to have them in your yard as opposed to a forest that youll most likely never get to visit.

KevN · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 2020

Excellent comparison. Well put.

D Jordan · Joined: 08 Nov 2007 Posts: 2133

Ben You have to look at two uses of carbon offsets.

Traded among industries, theyre a smart idea. They let carbon reductions come from the businesses that can do it the cheapest. Good for society. Industries can verify transactions are rightful, and the government wants that also.

For persons, they make less sense. There are great possibilities for scams, and the government has no interest in trying to verify a big number of tiny transactions. persons have many improved ways to fight world warming, better lighting, more insulation, purchasing the smallest car that meets their needs, etc.

Dont throw out the baby carbon trading among industries with the bathwater carbon trading for persons .