Sorry libs, this just isnt your week

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Will you losers please just stay home and suck on your wheat tea and tend to your organic gardens????

 

 

 

 

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

 

By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London

 

Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07

 

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

 

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

 

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

 

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

 

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.

 

The FT investigation found:

 

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

 

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

 

■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

 

■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

 

■ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

 

Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.

 

“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.

 

These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.

 

Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.

 

The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.

 

Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.

 

There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.

 

BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries.

[lennie75 0]

Guess who owns a carbon offset company: Gore

 

I have no problem great for him.

 

Here is my problem...and please correct me if I am wrong(no linky) just somethign I have heard.

My problem is that it takes 80 years to actually offset the carbon that you are supposedly offsetting...then enviromentaalist say that we only ahve a few years to make corrections. Well great...that is all fine and good...but if you are going to preach that shouldn't you do more than offset your carbon footprint. shouldn't you set an example by eleminating your footprint instead of taking 80 years to offset it!!

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Guess who owns a carbon offset company: Gore

 

I have no problem great for him.

 

Here is my problem...and please correct me if I am wrong(no linky) just somethign I have heard.

My problem is that it takes 80 years to actually offset the carbon that you are supposedly offsetting...then enviromentaalist say that we only ahve a few years to make corrections. Well great...that is all fine and good...but if you are going to preach that shouldn't you do more than offset your carbon footprint. shouldn't you set an example by eleminating your footprint instead of taking 80 years to offset it!!

 

DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT try to make sense of ANY liberal doctrine. It is the gold standard of exercises in futility. All livestock/animal/cattle methane emissions are responsible for more carbon emission than all man made carbon producers put together.

 

Its the biggest sham ever.

[football_scooter 0]

it's the "come to jesus" philosophy...don't matter how much you've sinned, if ya come to jeeeezus, all is forgiven.

 

Carbon credits = accepting christ into your heart. You're forgiven for your enormous footprint and absolved of all associated guilt because you offset it. Never mind that you could just REDUCE YOUR CONSUMPTION - no, that's too logical.

 

[remote controller 136]

bumped for the gutter portion of his personality

 

Nice post rusty

[Snoopy1 0]

DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT try to make sense of ANY liberal doctrine. It is the gold standard of exercises in futility. All livestock/animal/cattle methane emissions are responsible for more carbon emission than all man made carbon producers put together.

 

Its the biggest sham ever.

 

 

All livestock/animal/cattle methane emissions are responsible for more carbon emission than all man made carbon producers put together.

 

 

This might be the dumbest focking thing ever posted here.

 

The only thing that doesn't make sense is how the hell you managed to get past the 6th grade.

[Toro 1]

All livestock/animal/cattle methane emissions are responsible for more carbon emission than all man made carbon producers put together.

This might be the dumbest focking thing ever posted here.

 

Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential.[1] When averaged over 100 years each kg of CH4 warms the Earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2, however there is approximately 220 times as much CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as methane.[2]

 

Or are you referring to the fact that the livestock/animal/cattle emissions are directly caused by man's overpopulation and consumption?

[lennie75 0]

All livestock/animal/cattle methane emissions are responsible for more carbon emission than all man made carbon producers put together.

This might be the dumbest focking thing ever posted here.

 

The only thing that doesn't make sense is how the hell you managed to get past the 6th grade.

I dont' think it is quite the dumbest thing ever. There are plenty of people out there who agree even the Greenman Gore himself.

 

http://newsbusters.org/node/11081

http://veganica.com/info/news.php?id=52

http://scienceline.org/2007/03/23/env_knight_ipcccows/

[Snoopy1 0]

I dont' think it is quite the dumbest thing ever. There are plenty of people out there who agree even the Greenman Gore himself.

 

http://newsbusters.org/node/11081

http://veganica.com/info/news.php?id=52

http://scienceline.org/2007/03/23/env_knight_ipcccows/

 

 

Once again, you show you have absolutely no reading comprehension skills at all.

 

methane emissions are responsible for more carbon emission

 

 

From your own link:

When most people think of climate change they envision billowing smokestacks, and diesel engines responsible for releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But they’re over looking a far more inconspicuous culprit – methane– emissions of which may be slowing down.

 

Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, behind only carbon dioxide,

 

It's a different gas, methane doesn't produce carbon, which is what Bobo said...

 

 

Or are you referring to the fact that the livestock/animal/cattle emissions are directly caused by man's overpopulation and consumption?

 

 

Toro, read what he wrote again. Read my reply to Lennie....

[Toro 1]

Toro, read what he wrote again. Read my reply to Lennie....

 

Methane is a hydrocarbon and is generally associated with the group of "carbon emissions" responsible for global warming.

[Snoopy1 0]

Methane is a hydrocarbon and is generally associated with the group of "carbon emissions" responsible for global warming.

 

 

Cmon on...they are broken down into the 2 different gases that they are...there are scores of articles talking specifically about methane emission vs carbon emmission. They are only time they are associated is under the umbrella of greenhouse gases.

[Toro 1]

Cmon on...they are broken down into the 2 different gases that they are...there are scores of articles talking specifically about methane emission vs carbon emmission. They are only time they are associated is under the umbrella of greenhouse gases.

 

Greenhouse gases are components of the atmosphere that contribute to the Greenhouse effect. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities.[1] Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

 

Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential.[1] When averaged over 100 years each kg of CH4 warms the Earth 23 times as much as the same mass of CO2, however there is approximately 220 times as much CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as methane.[2]

 

If you would like to seperate out the effects of carbon dioxide and methane, then fine. But I just think you sometimes get a little overzealous trying to "own" people on semantics, rather than logic.

[Snoopy1 0]

If you would like to seperate out the effects of carbon dioxide and methane, then fine. But I just think you sometimes get a little overzealous trying to "own" people on semantics, rather than logic.

 

Dude, both of your quotes seperate methane and CO2... It's not me who is the one who seperates them, everybody does.

 

And again, he said methane emissions are responsible for carbon emissions...you know that is patently 100% wrong.

[Toro 1]

Dude, both of your quotes seperate methane and CO2... It's not me who is the one who seperates them, everybody does.

 

And again, he said methane emissions are responsible for carbon emissions...you know that is patently 100% wrong.

 

I read "carbon emissions" as a synonym for "greenhouse gases". You obviously read them as "Carbon Dioxide emissions". I was simply pointing out that Methane is a carbon, so technically it could be a "carbon emission".

 

Like I said earlier, I just think you sometimes get a little overzealous trying to "own" people on semantics, rather than logic.

[Blitzen 0]

All livestock/animal/cattle methane emissions are responsible for more carbon emission than all man made carbon producers put together.

This might be the dumbest focking thing ever posted here.

 

The only thing that doesn't make sense is how the hell you managed to get past the 6th grade.

 

Question: why are there so many heads of cattle around the earth producing all this methane? A: Because we eat them. So it's basically another man-made greenhouse gas source.

 

Another major contributor to greenhouse gases going up is deforestation related to beef production. Another man-made source.

 

I agree that cars aren't the only problem but I fully disagree that those other sources are "natural".

 

Landfills are other great methane sources and that's why I've been composting for years. It's very easy to do, doesn't smell and reduces my trash (or at least what's left of it after recycling) by at least half.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I read "carbon emissions" as a synonym for "greenhouse gases". You obviously read them as "Carbon Dioxide emissions". I was simply pointing out that Methane is a carbon, so technically it could be a "carbon emission".

 

Like I said earlier, I just think you sometimes get a little overzealous trying to "own" people on semantics, rather than logic.

 

Thanks, didnt think someone would need that explained to them. Its what they do, they try to split hairs in the hopes of detracting from the real debate, its all they've got left. That was one of the better ownings ive seen in here.

 

And if my post was the "dumbest focking thing ever".....what does that make yours, Snoop? The smile on my face couldnt be any bigger.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Question: why are there so many heads of cattle around the earth producing all this methane? A: Because we eat them. So it's basically another man-made greenhouse gas source.

 

Another major contributor to greenhouse gases going up is deforestation related to beef production. Another man-made source.

 

I agree that cars aren't the only problem but I fully disagree that those other sources are "natural".

 

Landfills are other great methane sources and that's why I've been composting for years. It's very easy to do, doesn't smell and reduces my trash (or at least what's left of it after recycling) by at least half.

 

Ok, this really is silly. Do you have any idea of the numbers of animals on this planet? Do you have any idea of the percentage we consume? Answer that and get to my next point.

 

Of all the animals on the planet, billions of people still starve, so you want to get rid of said animals, still?

 

And finally, if we didnt eat them, there would be MORE. Which kinda kills ur theory that we are the issue.

[Blitzen 0]

the real debate

 

 

You're right. When you tell losers they should stay home and suck on their tea are you talking about folks at Dupont suckering people into paying more for its carbon offsets? Those ###### Dupont environmentalists are at it again...

 

To use a much used conservative talking point, why don't we let the market take care of this? Looks like HSBC will keep going with offsets but they'll do it on their own. That's fine by me. A lot of the points raised above by FT could be applied to companies in the private sector and I haven't heard anyone ask that the private sector be tossed aside. I think it's great that FT did this piece of research as it will only make offset projects better. Just like the Enron case may result in less fraud in the future because of higher accountability.

[Snoopy1 0]

Thanks, didnt think someone would need that explained to them. Its what they do, they try to split hairs in the hopes of detracting from the real debate, its all they've got left. That was one of the better ownings ive seen in here.

 

And if my post was the "dumbest focking thing ever".....what does that make yours, Snoop? The smile on my face couldnt be any bigger.

 

 

You consider it owning someone when has to translate into english your posts...

 

[IGotWorms 3,405]

Isn't our week?

 

April 26, 2007

Flexing Muscles, Democrats Issue 3 Subpoenas

By NEIL A. LEWIS and ERIC LIPTON

 

WASHINGTON, April 25 — In a vivid display of their new power, Democrats across Capitol Hill on Wednesday approved a flurry of subpoenas to fuel a series of investigations of the Bush administration.

 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued three subpoenas in quick order. One was to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to answer questions about the administration’s prewar claims about Iraq’s weapons programs and two were to the Republican National Committee and its chairman to be questioned about whether the party’s e-mail system was used by Bush officials to conceal some of their actions.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee authorized but did not issue a subpoena for Sara Taylor, the deputy to Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political adviser. The committee wants to question Ms. Taylor about the White House role in the dismissal of eight United States attorneys.

 

And, in what could be a significant development in the investigation of the dismissals, the House Judiciary Committee moved toward granting a form of immunity from prosecution to Monica Goodling, a senior aide to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales until her recent resignation. Ms. Goodling, who was deeply involved in the dismissals, has invoked her Fifth Amendment rights to decline to give testimony that might be self-incriminating.

 

 

[Toro 1]

You consider it owning someone when has to translate into english your posts...

 

 

It's like RAAAAIIIIIIAAAAAAANNNNN....on your wedding day...

 

[Snoopy1 0]

I read "carbon emissions" as a synonym for "greenhouse gases". You obviously read them as "Carbon Dioxide emissions". I was simply pointing out that Methane is a carbon, so technically it could be a "carbon emission".

 

Like I said earlier, I just think you sometimes get a little overzealous trying to "own" people on semantics, rather than logic.

 

 

Toro, read this thread again. He's responding to someone about carbon credits, then says that methane emissions are the greatest source of CO2 emmisions. There was no logic there, it was someone who has dangerously little knowledge trying to look like he actually has a clue what he's talking about....

[lennie75 0]

Once again, you show you have absolutely no reading comprehension skills at all.

From your own link:

When most people think of climate change they envision billowing smokestacks, and diesel engines responsible for releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But they’re over looking a far more inconspicuous culprit – methane– emissions of which may be slowing down.

 

Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas, behind only carbon dioxide,

 

It's a different gas, methane doesn't produce carbon, which is what Bobo said...

Toro, read what he wrote again. Read my reply to Lennie....

Snoop...you are truly pathetic. Reading comprehension has nothing to do with it. You were debunked end of story. I really think it is you who has a hard time listening to other people. You are so wrapped up in yuor "truth" you can not make sense of anyone else's opinions (or most fo the time FACTS).

 

Snoop...you are truly pathetic. Reading comprehension has nothing to do with it. You were debunked end of story. I really think it is you who has a hard time listening to other people. You are so wrapped up in yuor "truth" you can not make sense of anyone else's opinions (or most fo the time FACTS).

I agree w/ you that the wording of his comment may have confused "YOU" but it was easy to see what he was meaning...at least to those of us with intelligence!!!

[Boz/BoFan 0]

You're right. When you tell losers they should stay home and suck on their tea are you talking about folks at Dupont suckering people into paying more for its carbon offsets? Those ###### Dupont environmentalists are at it again...

 

To use a much used conservative talking point, why don't we let the market take care of this? Looks like HSBC will keep going with offsets but they'll do it on their own. That's fine by me. A lot of the points raised above by FT could be applied to companies in the private sector and I haven't heard anyone ask that the private sector be tossed aside. I think it's great that FT did this piece of research as it will only make offset projects better. Just like the Enron case may result in less fraud in the future because of higher accountability.

 

This IS the market taking care of it, it starts in places like this and in the newsrooms and then we see in full the sham for what it really is. How is it usually done?

 

Toro, read this thread again. He's responding to someone about carbon credits, then says that methane emissions are the greatest source of CO2 emmisions. There was no logic there, it was someone who has dangerously little knowledge trying to look like he actually has a clue what he's talking about....

 

You're really having a hard time with this arent you?

[Blitzen 0]

Ok, this really is silly. Do you have any idea of the numbers of animals on this planet? Do you have any idea of the percentage we consume? Answer that and get to my next point.

 

Have a look at table 7.1 in this doc. As you can see domesticated ruminants produce WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more methane than wild ruminants and large herbivores.

 

Of all the animals on the planet, billions of people still starve, so you want to get rid of said animals, still?

 

Itisatip that it's possible to not starve and eat very little meat. It's actually possible to not starve and not eat any meat. People starving around the world isn't necessarily related to a lack of beef.

 

And finally, if we didnt eat them, there would be MORE. Which kinda kills ur theory that we are the issue.

 

There wouldn't be more since we produce them to eat them. If we didn't eat so much of them, there would be less need for them and there would be less produced. Get it?

[lennie75 0]

I read "carbon emissions" as a synonym for "greenhouse gases". You obviously read them as "Carbon Dioxide emissions". I was simply pointing out that Methane is a carbon, so technically it could be a "carbon emission".

 

Like I said earlier, I just think you sometimes get a little overzealous trying to "own" people on semantics, rather than logic.

Ding, Ding, Ding...we have a winner. Snoop explained in one sentence. Can't back anything up but will try to twist your words around.

[Blitzen 0]

This IS the market taking care of it, it starts in places like this and in the newsrooms and then we see in full the sham for what it really is. How is it usually done?

 

So looking at your title, are you saying that folks working at Dupont and HSBC are libs?

[Toro 1]

Toro, read this thread again. He's responding to someone about carbon credits, then says that methane emissions are the greatest source of CO2 emmisions. There was no logic there, it was someone who has dangerously little knowledge trying to look like he actually has a clue what he's talking about....

 

No, he specifically said...

 

All livestock/animal/cattle methane emissions are responsible for more carbon emission than all man made carbon producers put together.

 

He specifically said "carbon emission". YOU are trying to say he said "CO2 emissions". He obviously didn't.

 

Also, "carbon credits" do not specifically refer to CO2 exactly, but rather the umbrella of "carbon emissions" or "greenhouse gases". Specifically, in the article it refers to carbon credits being used for cleaning up "from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23". HFC-23 is obviously not the same as CO2, so therefore I believe that carbon credits apply to all "carbon emissions" or "greenhouse gases".

 

Like I said earlier, I just think you sometimes get a little overzealous trying to "own" people on semantics, rather than logic.

[Blitzen 0]

I guess having:

 

"People who support carbon offset projects are having a bad week"

 

as a title wouldn't have been as satisfying to you.

 

 

Alsoalso I've been looking for links to info about Dupont's organic gardens and haven't found them yet.

[Uh-huh 0]

Isn't our week?

 

BTW, "Logic" and "boz/bo fan" aren't allowed within 500 feet of each other.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

 

BTW, "Logic" and "boz/bo fan" aren't allowed within 500 feet of each other.

 

Well played Snoop, well played.