Re: Carbon Offsets


"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:oK6dnR69qrrYyW7YnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jerry Okamura wrote:



Yes, but....there are many ways to provide an "incentive" to reduce pollution of several kinds, are they not? For instance, the government can give tax credits to reward someone who does reduce pollution, can they not?

Government incentives are available at many levels, but they have been insufficient to reduce emissions overall.

I was pondering our conversation last night, and I guess the basic problem I have with carbon offsets is the fact that one person does the "right" thing and reduces his emissions of carbon, and the other person does not do the "right" thing, in the sense that he did not reduce his emissions of carbon, yet he gets credit for doing the "right thing". It would just seem to me, that "if" the reduction of carbon is that important, then the policy should be to get both people to reduce their carbon emissions.


It also encourages new home construction to be more energy efficient in return for dividends returned by other owners of older, less energy efficient homes.


Why do you have to provide an incentive?

Because industry responds only to the bottom line. As long as they can externalize the costs of pollution, they will not take effective action to reduce pollution. The trading of offsets gives them a profit motive that shows up in the bottom line.

NO. Industry has to price the home at a level that people can afford. I "could" build a very energy efficient home, if cost was not a factor. For instance, I could build a house within a house. The separation between the outer walls and inner walls it seems to me, would serve as the best insulator I can think of. With good insulation, my utilization of the energy I need to keep the house cool in the summer, and warm in the winter, is going to be greatly reduced. I could take advantage of the fact that the best insulation is the ground. "If" I built the house underground, I would not need a whole lot of additional energy to heat or cool the house...though I have to figure out a way to provide lighting. I could reduce my energy consumption by putting the freezer inside of the refrigeration unit, rather than a separate freezer, which I would think would also reduce energy consumption. I could make use of the fact that the temperature under ground is constant, and tap that source to help keep my house warm in the winter and cool in the summmer.

Likewise for automobiles and any other source of pollution.


How does carbon trading do that?

Companies that produce more energy efficient cars can sell credits to companies that do not. As long as the net emissions continue to be reduced, it gives companies time to plan production of new energy-efficient cars. Is it enough of a motivation? I don't know and this is one of the criticisms of offsets.


NO. Ultimately the cost of the vehicle becomes the overridding factor. Now "if" you can sell a car that is reasonably price competitive to the alternative, then I would agree with you.

Essentially the approach allows free market trading in energy conservation.

I thought that you were in favor of the free market.


It is not a free market when the government gets involved. It is a free market when the government allows the "free maket" to operate without their interference.


No one has found a way for the free market to be motivated to reduce emissions. This is because there is no benefit to the bottom line. As long as they can externalize the cost of pollution, they will continue to pollute.

Most likely true....

.

Relevant Pages

  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?"We_are_in_the_middle_of_a_revolution_and_Im_happ?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?y_
    ... planet is "a free-market system and a lot less government." ... how the environment figures into his small-government agenda. ... What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the ... to certain forms of pollution. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Hydrogen trial in Perth, Western Australia, letter from project official
    ... >> ie. Methane to hydrogen ends up throwing away some energy which could ... > Which still produces carbon dioxide, ... Sure but isnt the direct use of methane going to produce less pollution than ... I accept we should move away from a fuel which creates ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Article: Beyond Gasoline - Hyrdogen?
    ... > In the US the Government has been funding clean coal research for about 15 ... "govt" and the coal industry have direct financial interests - then I ... If there were NO SUBSIDIES for energy - including Nukes - and all ... generators of energy had to account for their pollution then we'd ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: Best Books on Hydrogen Future Possibilities
    ... I'd like to avoid anything that is all hype but also avoid books ... Terrestral hydrogen is ONLY an energy ... Terrestrial hydrogen is basically a POLLUTION ... "Carbon Neutral" solutions would appear better ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Leaked papers show Britain trying to weaken plan for EU carbon cuts.
    ... lack of commitment to carbon reduction on the part of the government ... "Britain is trying to weaken European proposals to make governments ... count against their pollution targets. ...
    (uk.transport)
Loading