Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’ – FT.com: Well, this shines a new light into Al Gore’s use of carbon trading to offset the energy requirement of his house, making it carbon neutral.
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.
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 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.
Scott, I really don’t want to take advice on economic growth from Haiti and the Dominican Republic, so I’ll assume you’re being sarcastic.
Nevertheless the scientific models assume huge economic growth that will not happen. Without that growth, there will not be massive global warming as predicted. If somehow that growth is achieved, then the warming will not produce the devastation they predicted. They should stop assuming the countries will be wealthy in the future AND as poor as they are now.
As for the hockey stick, the IPCC used it in their 2001 report, so the scientific consensus then thought it was valid. Now they’re not so sure, so it’s no longer in the report.
The IPCC used the hockey stick graph to make a slap shot that went wide of the net.
64 MISSanthropic Scott, keep reading. You missed the end of the article.
“Global warming – at least the modern nightmare version – is a myth,” he said. “I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy-makers are not.”
“Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock.”
62, Jim, Try looking up “CO2 poisoning”
And when the CO2 hits about 7% to 10% of your ambient air, you DO die. Even if the rest is O2. …
Again, death by CO2 is not always death by lack of O2. Though quite often it is. …
(CO2 is) toxic. Just not as toxic as CO. But a much more unpleasant way to die. Fer sure.
http://yarchive.net/med/co2_poisoning.html
The problem with the small enclosed room is that the levels of CO2 build, even if the O2 remains safe. While O2 attaches to the Red Blood cells, CO2 is dissolved into the blood plasma. If the atmospheric CO2 is too great, the transfer of CO2 from the blood can not take place and so it remains in the blood.
When Homeland Security suggested we stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting to make a safe room this was the fear. Although there might have been sufficient O2 in the room, the increasing amount of CO2 would have caused people to first loose consciousness and then ultimately death.
My point is that although small amounts of certain things are good, too much can be toxic. Even at less then toxic levels, there may be undesirable side effects.
#62, Jim, I forgot. OSHA also has limits on atmospheric CO2. I’m not sure but it is something like a maximum of 1% for a maximum duration of ten minutes without a breathing apparatus.
#69 Thanks Mr.Fusion, I didn’t know any of that. I learned a new tidbit today. 🙂
#65 – MikeN,
Actually, I am not being at all sarcastic. It happens to be one of the pairs of cultures detailed in Collapse by Jared Diamond.
These two countries share an island. Their starting point was, almost by definition, as close as two countries could be. Haiti destroyed their environment and is the poorest country in the new world. The Dominican Republic has preserved a large percentage of their land and has a quite reasonable economy, among the best in the Carribean.
Don’t compare them to the U.S. Compare them to each other. See if you think environmental consciousness makes good business sense. The answer is a resounding yes.
#67 – BgScryAnml,
I saw that. I just thought that based on the paragraphs leading up to it they had completely and utterly failed to make their point.
The OSHA permissible exposure limit for carbon dioxide is 5,000 ppm as an 8 hour time weighted average. This is well below the level needed to create oxygen deficiency. The limit is set based on the toxic effects of carbon dioxide.