Another problem is that if individuals are encouraged to buy offsets on their own to offset the carbon dioxide released by driving, flying or heating their homes, they may buy their offsets form unscrupulous operators, who may promise to plant trees or to develop renewable power, but may instead just pocket the money.
Don't listen to Maxx' nonsense. Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Someone said politics ...im not sure about that. at the end of the day, you have to follow your permit issued by your state (which must be scientifically defensible) or EPA will bring the hammer down. which means that no matter where the offsets are coming from or even if they are getting them for free ...the emissions are still being offset
The same person also said something about the credit suppliers pocketing the money. In some cases they are contractually obligated to produce "x" amounts of credits or suffer a financial penalty. Additionally, credits cannot be supplied or approved without a verifier (for example..a verifier assigned by the CCX chicago climate exchange).
The real problems are:
1. not enough aggregates for the collection of credits from small landowners (look up aggregates ...they collect all the small credits ..pay the landowners and bundle the credits for sale to industry etc..)
2. the credit supplier -> aggregate -> credit buyer process is complicated, expensive (the credit suppliers have to pay for the verification) and often not worth it for small land owners. The process needs to be simplified and streamlined
3. the changes in land use to generate credits and not permanent and easily reversible.Implementation of more expensive and long lived approaches should be used ..e.g. anaerobic digesters
theres more but I cant think of any right now..dont forget cap and trade applies for gas emissions as well as water quality
1) Definition of offsets.
2) Verification of offsets over international boarders.
3) Complexity of administration and cost of administration.
4) Difficulty and uncertainty in setting the cap.
5) Ability of middle-men to take profits intended for innovators (a problem with all markets)
“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”
Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.
But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.
The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.
The company involved, New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon-dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad."
Meanwhile, in Europe, carbon trading has become a highly profitable enterprise--for criminals. It is estimated that they have pocketed 5 billion euros from fraudulent transactions.
This site is limited as to words, but in essence, once it would be implemented, there would be spiraling out of control energy costs. A few people would get rich and the majority would go hungry.
It's a huge tax for a problem that does not exist.
Cap and Trade is the heart of Agenda 21 - see what that is all about below:
Taxation is slavery, plain and simple. What bigger problem is there than slavery?
