Topic: Carbon markets and climate change mitigation, Are we in the right direction? - page 2. (Read 501 times)

Maybe it is truly funny? The OP already said the reason why. I think the problem is not about the excessive industry but it's about how they operate and I don't believe that experts invented that kind of thing only to damage more the earth. They actually created it to reduce the carbon emissions but it's just that there are abusive people who thinks they can make more profit out of it if they build more industries which emits carbon.

The effect that you said there is known as global warming and other than the large ships, the melting of ice in the Antarctic Ocean due to global warming might be another cause for the water level to rise. This is alarming.

The initial idea sounded good enough on the blueprint, though. It was all about fining those who used fossil fuels so they would be slowly prompted to change their sources of energy to save costs of operation. Unfortunally, it was not done by direct fines, but rather though the implementation of tokens or tokenized carbon credits, which by themselves create a new market for the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The problem of those carbon tokens is that the centralized issuer of those tokens, in order to increase the price of them, feels it is good to encourage the dependence of the industry on fossil fuels, so they will continue to be a high demand of those tokens.
If the mission of those tokenized credits of carbon dioxide was going as planned, then the price is supposed to decrease steadily by the passing of years and the demand for them to disappear, pointing to the transition of a greener economy.

The emmission of carbon dioxide was never supposed to become a business of people actually cared about the future of environment, in my opinion.

Yea it is funny to think about market of carbon. It is ridiculous really, at least for my simple mind. Instead of doing something more concrete action like developing green energy or conservation, they instead capitalizing on the carbon emission.

I'm not an expert in this science, hearing about the carbon market seems funny. what I have seen in YouTube videos is that to maintain the balance of the earth,  must reduce excessive industry. Due to the growing effects of industrial changes, hot temperatures are increasing and the climate is not controlled. the concept of things like that is just a method that causes itself to become damaged. like rising sea water due to the effect of large ships which continue to increase due to great pressure

In my experience in the field of work, I try to research how to mitigate that and I think a lot of people and students as well are focusing on these types of problems. I do hope that somehow there will be a game changer with a product that could alleviate all the problems. It's definitely affecting everyone if we don't do something about those carbon emissions that makes the world even warmer.

In terms of the carbon market, we are definitely in a weird part where it can affect climate change but not to the point of really mitigating it because of the verifying factor if it is really being protected and offsetting their carbon foot print in the communities most affected. That's probably why there are people who think it is a scam or something. It's an initiative but there can be a more quality project that might be really effective.

This is all one big scam if you ask me.
The so called carbon footprint is one of them and its goal is to limit our rights and allow the government to snoop around on our properties, imposing taxes and fines wherever they please.

I'll give you a real life example. 20 years ago you had more freedom as a builder. Nowadays the state has screwed itself up because it had an idea that people would put solar panels on their roofs and sell power to the grid, but it backfired. So many people did it that it overloaded the grid, forced the state to invest in power transformers and thicker cables. The whole grid became unstable and I felt it because I'm on 3 phase power and often one phase would go down in the whole neighborhood due to unbalance (too many people connected their panels to the same phase with no phase balance switches). The state would then have to invest in these balance units that are now bussing all day in the Summer. They're so loud that you'd get a constant headache if you were to live near one. My neighbor wanted to connect a new house to the grid and he waited a year until they agreed to do it and this is just one of many things that got fucked up by the EU. Now they want every house to have a charging port for an EV, but the grid can't take it, not to mention that many people don't have 2 phase power, so they'd have to run a new power line from the street to the house, which costs a lot of money.

Then there's a new requirement that every house needs an energy performance certification. You're supposed to let them audit your house and pay them so they can add you to a list. Don't know what that list is for, but most likely so they can tax you for your carbon footprint. Your walls are not thick enough, or you have a fireplace and you'll pay more taxes. Just another way for them to steal from you.

So the carbon market was supposed to help fight climate change but now it seems like some richer countries are using it as a way to keep polluting. They invest in harmful projects but just buy carbon credits from others to balance it out. The issue here is that this can harm poorer countries which are already dealing with the worst impacts of climate change. It's like a loophole that might not be helping the planet as much as it should

I'm not the biggest expert in this field, but carbon credits are not a fine. You are just obligated by the system to buy carbon credits, if you are producing lots of carbon emissions. Some "green idiots" have decided that CO2 is bad for the environment, even though the plants and trees consume CO2. The excessive amount of CO2 produced by the industry is what created global warming(that's what the "green scientists" are saying). There's no discussion about other possible factors causing global warming.
Anyway, all the countries that accepting carbon credits trading has done this voluntarily. If some underdeveloped country thinks that carbon credits are stopping it's industrialization, that particular country could simply out of the carbon credits trading system(this will probably have some negative consequences, but I'm not sure about that). 

RIOT(+sister companies) made profit selling its fossil fuel energy to the grid
RIOT(+sister companies) made profit selling its carbon credits

Carbon trading is the most ridiculous solution for Climate change, this loop holes is used by first world countries to continue emitting carbon and destroying environment, while at the same time discouraging 3rd world country to develop their industry. Those already developed nation basically saying that, 'Let us advanced while destroying the world, and you guys can stay in the jungle'.

Some research might say that Carbon Trading help Reduce Emission but it's still questionable, there is not enough evidence that Carbon Trading is has significant effect on reducing emission, Based on this article. While the benefit is remain vague, the harm is inevitable, the economic gap between Third World Nation and Developed Nation will be wider because Third World Nation will be discouraged and even politically forced to halt developing their industry for the reason to help climate crisis, while those already rich country can keep polluting the world in the name of technology advancement.

I was initially sceptical, but I've decided to read about their effectiveness, and it seems that they can actually be a good thing to work on reducing carbon emissions. The US Environmental Protection Agency says they can be very effective under some circumstances, such as a large geographic area under pollution, many sources being responsible for pollution, and the possibility of properly measuring pollution. Then there's also an academic article in Nature that looks at various countries and claims that ETS reduces emissions and is generally effective.
In case of climate change, I believe it's important to rely on science, and despite our assumptions, it looks like ETS is a good way forward.

For some of us that are from developing nation's, achieving this height of carbon reduction seems like an unending crisis, carbonization and usage of combustion engine are heavily still in use in most of our countries , so Alternative source of energy looks like rocket science to us, because the environment to which alternative source of energy can fully come into implementation has not been laid yet.

Before we can fully go into alternative source of energy and supportedly the green energy, world leaders needs to come together and there should be a political will power to end carbonization across the globe, and that political will power, will come with sacrifice and not just a smoke screen cacophony that politicians use to do.

Surely the established system of carbon allowances with the ability to trade unused allowances is wrong. Caps on carbon emissions are necessary. But if a country has made some progress in reducing such environmentally harmful emissions, it should be incentivized in other ways, rather than being presented with the opportunity to sell its right to emit a certain amount of carbon. In addition, the volume of such permitted emissions must be reduced every year, thus stimulating countries to use alternative energy sources and other economical production methods.

Because if poor countries do this their whole advantage and main reason why players in heavy polluting industry have to move there is gone and they could just as well produce following the same norms in Europe and North America, so if they stop polluting....they die in poverty. Not so clear choice now, right?


Cattle breeding has a share of 31% of all farming, not overall gas emission, so it's more like all ruminants (cows, sheep, goats) including milk producing not just meat making 31% of 13.7% so more like 4.27%.
Also, 30% of all the cattle is in India, so good luck trying to cut the number down.


Carbon is not the commodity, it's carbon credits, so you don't get paid to produce CO2, you get fined for producing!

This is one of the reasons I don't buy the idea of some of the governments at all, they will leave doing the needful a d concentrate on the needless, this was the same way they have been used in rendering several attacks on bitcoin saying it's an environmental disaster while other factors and human activities that were regulated by the government causing havoc upon lives couldn't be seen as the first priority they needed to deal with.



All these will continue to happen when we keep having leaders that are less concerned about the people and their welfares than what they stand to benefits from every of human activities be it harmful or not to the environment once it is under their own regulations because they are earning from it, this is the kind of economic activities our leaders have the courage of going for what is not beneficial to man but  accept their uses and operations because they earn from them.

I thought before now that there has been a clamor by international organizations and NGO's for countries to try and decarbonate themselves, which have led to the production of non-emitting carbon cars and engines and a great discouragement of usage of the fossil fuel, I hear everyday of green energy and the need to encourage green energy and stop in total the usage  of combustion engines.

I'm surprised to know that carbon is now being turned to a commodity that is being traded, however if there's a strong market for carbon and people are weighing in to get the product, then I don't see the carbon emission stopping anytime soon.

If you ask me, all (or most) of these initiatives, ideas and projects that should reduce the amount of harmful gases in the atmosphere and reduce the increase in temperature are in some way just a smoke screen behind which nothing actually happens. Many people think that electric vehicles will be something that will save the planet from excessive warming, but the data shows that all traffic in the world produces about 14% of greenhouse gases, while cattle breeding has a share of even 31%, which is really shocking data.

Therefore, I think that our priorities are wrong and that we are slowly but surely heading towards a point of no return, which some scientists say has already been reached. Under crazy ideas about constant progress and growth, we are destroying the planet to the extent that it is returning it to us in the only way it can - and this very likely means that even before the end of this century, a good part of the southern hemisphere will not be suitable for normal life, and first one who will pay the price are the island states and cities on the sea coasts, which will slowly be taken over by the sea due to the melting of the ice on both poles.

Almost all of us have heard of climate change, and perhaps some of us have begun to feel it, as emissions trading schemes (ETS) and carbon offset projects are the basic mechanisms in fighting climate change, but what is happening now is that the carbon market has turned, instead of a solution to the problem, into a mechanism to encourage countries to continue emitting. The emissions trading system has succeeded in turning carbon into a commodity.

In trading carbon credits, (tCO2e) weighing one ton is used for sale, but it is noted that the total market value increases every year, and industrialized countries have begun to encourage projects that are harmful to the environment at the expense of purchasing carbon credits from other countries, as industrialized countries increase their investments that are harmful to the environment, while poor countries are The first to be affected by climate change.