Local

Expensive Carbon Credit Magics –

Very enlightening things are happening in the communities of climate change activists and others who believe that climate change is equal to ruin. They are fighting over the carbon offsets in the forest.

ProPublica and MIT Technology Review reported on a survey by a San Francisco non-profit organization called CarbonPlan. This report and investigation has been challenged by the California Air Resources Board. They are arguing whether forest carbon credits are actually producing carbon reductions or are they actually responsible for increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

To understand this controversy, we begin by accepting the premise from the group that “climate change is equal to ruin” that global warming is happening and that it is catastrophic and that it is all our responsibility. Let’s do it. For the sake of discussion, assume it’s all true. The world will end unless we meet any of the world’s greenhouse gas reduction goals by any deadline.

Today, almost every American company is under pressure to declare that it is working towards “carbon neutral” or “net zero.” The Google home page is accompanied by a small green leaf with a respectable statement, “Carbon Neutral since 2007.”

But what exactly does that mean? This means that companies have calculated greenhouse gas emissions from their business activities and purchased “offsets” to reach neutrality.

Perhaps that won’t solve the problem very much. Please stay here with me.

California, which accounts for only about 1% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, has legislation requiring a steady reduction in GHG emissions. These laws are enforced by the California Air Resources Board. To do this, CARB can be emitted by “polluters” such as utilities producing electricity, refineries producing transportation fuels, or manufacturers producing materials and finished products. Invented the “Cap and Trade” program, which sets an upper limit on how many tons of annual emissions of a “polluter” must have a greenhouse gas emission permit or offset.

Like a medieval church that allows medievaldu drowning, CARB gives a certain number of permits. The permit will also be sold at auction and the money will be donated to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A quarter of the money raised was spent on the construction of the Shinkansen and is currently saving the planet with each new consulting contract.

CARB can also mitigate sin by buying carbon offsets for bad guys who produce energy and industrial products. The idea here is that an entity that emits a large amount of GHG can “offset” evil by paying a large amount of GHG emission to prevent it elsewhere.

From here the forest enters the story. Trees consume carbon dioxide and release oxygen. Large amounts of carbon are “isolated” in the forest and stored in tree trunks, branches and roots. Cutting a tree releases carbon. Therefore, paying the landowner not to cut the tree is an “offset”.

The trick to this operation is to calculate the number of carbon credits each landowner can sell. And this is Houdini’s worthwhile trick. Carbon credits are made for realization, there is a dazzling flash of money, and suddenly greenhouse gas emissions disappear. A green leaf appears on the website.

Here’s how to do the trick: CARB or a non-profit organization officially calculates the number of trees that will be logged if the land is maximally logged. Later, less logging contracts are signed, which counts as a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The total amount is divided into forest carbon credits that can be sold in cash.

At the heart of the controversy among climate change activists is whether its largest logging was actually planned to take place, or is it just a fictitious baseline designed to generate phantom carbon credits that can be sold at high prices? Some activists say that the net impact of selling carbon credits could allow “polluters” to emit more greenhouse gases if no logging operations are carried out in these forests. I point out that it will be.

California law requires compliance with the “Cap and Trade” program, so companies in the state have no choice but to pay additional costs for permits, offsets, or technology upgrades. Companies in other states can choose to participate in the voluntary carbon credit market. The rules that apply to the creation of carbon credits in these markets have not been so rigorously investigated that more carbon credits could be sold without actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions at all. there is.

For California consumers, the cost of living is high as a result of this magical idea. If a utility, refinery, or manufacturer spends millions of dollars to buy “carbon credits,” who will ultimately pay for it? Of course, consumers. As the cost goes up, the price goes up. But what does it do for the climate?

nothing.

Even if we accept the premise that humans will be destroyed unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all of these forests will be logged almost completely unless a “carbon credit” agreement is signed to prevent their occurrence. That is not true. As a result, businesses are paying a fair amount of money for the fictitious increase in carbon sequestration and still emitting greenhouse gases as before.

This is all public relations and politics. It has no effect on the climate. Only living expenses are affected. It is so high in California that it has the highest poverty rate in the United States.

It’s not an illusion Very obvious things are happening in the community of climate change activists and other people who believe that climate change is equal to ruin. They are fighting over the carbon offsets in the forest.

ProPublica and MIT Technology Review reported on a survey by a San Francisco non-profit organization called CarbonPlan. This report and investigation has been challenged by the California Air Resources Board. They are arguing whether forest carbon credits are actually producing carbon reductions or are they actually responsible for increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

To understand this controversy, we begin by accepting the premise from the group that “climate change is equal to ruin” that global warming is happening and that it is catastrophic and that it is all our responsibility. Let’s do it. For the sake of discussion, assume it’s all true. The world will end unless we meet any of the world’s greenhouse gas reduction goals by any deadline.

Today, almost every American company is under pressure to declare that it is working towards “carbon neutral” or “net zero.” The Google home page is accompanied by a small green leaf with a respectable statement, “Carbon Neutral since 2007.”

But what exactly does that mean? This means that companies have calculated greenhouse gas emissions from their business activities and purchased “offsets” to reach neutrality.

Perhaps that won’t solve the problem very much. Please stay here with me.

California, which accounts for only about 1% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, has legislation requiring a steady reduction in GHG emissions. These laws are enforced by the California Air Resources Board. To do this, CARB can be emitted by “polluters” such as utilities producing electricity, refineries producing transportation fuels, or manufacturers producing materials and finished products. Invented the “Cap and Trade” program, which sets an upper limit on how many tons of annual emissions of a “polluter” must have a greenhouse gas emission permit or offset.

Like a medieval church that allows medievaldu drowning, CARB gives a certain number of permits. The permit will also be sold at auction and the money will be donated to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. A quarter of the money raised was spent on the construction of the Shinkansen and is currently saving the planet with each new consulting contract.

CARB can also mitigate sin by buying carbon offsets for bad guys who produce energy and industrial products. The idea here is that an entity that emits a large amount of GHG can “offset” evil by paying a large amount of GHG emission to prevent it elsewhere.

From here the forest enters the story. Trees consume carbon dioxide and release oxygen. Large amounts of carbon are “isolated” in the forest and stored in tree trunks, branches and roots. Cutting a tree releases carbon. Therefore, paying the landowner not to cut the tree is an “offset”.

The trick to this operation is to calculate the number of carbon credits each landowner can sell. And this is Houdini’s worthwhile trick. Carbon credits are made for realization, there is a dazzling flash of money, and suddenly greenhouse gas emissions disappear. A green leaf appears on the website.

Here’s how to do the trick: CARB or a non-profit organization officially calculates the number of trees that will be logged if the land is maximally logged. Later, less logging contracts are signed, which counts as a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The total amount is divided into forest carbon credits that can be sold in cash.

At the heart of the controversy among climate change activists is whether its largest logging was actually planned to take place, or is it just a fictitious baseline designed to generate phantom carbon credits that can be sold at high prices? Some activists say that even if no logging operations are done in these forests, the net effect of selling carbon credits is that “polluters” will produce even more greenhouse gases. It points out that it will be possible to discharge.

California law requires compliance with the “Cap and Trade” program, so companies in the state have no choice but to pay additional costs for permits, offsets, or technology upgrades. Companies in other states can choose to participate in the voluntary carbon credit market. The rules that apply to the creation of carbon credits in these markets have not been so rigorously investigated that more carbon credits could be sold without actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions at all. there is.

For California consumers, the cost of living is high as a result of this magical idea. If a utility, refinery, or manufacturer spends millions of dollars to buy “carbon credits,” who will ultimately pay for it? Of course, consumers. As the cost goes up, the price goes up. But what does it do for the climate?

nothing.

Expensive Carbon Credit Magics –

Source link Expensive Carbon Credit Magics –

Related Articles

Back to top button