Topic: Carbon markets and climate change mitigation, Are we in the right direction? (Read 322 times)

It is really a threat to the environment because it is changing the climate very fast.  Carbon dioxide is polluting the environment at a large rate. Carbon monoxide is also very toxic. The environment is being polluted very badly for the factories that produce carbon. Because of this, the climate is changing and everyone in the world is suffering from it. But less developed countries are more.  the victim  Apart from the carbon producing factories, we should also look at the reasons that the environment is being polluted due to many other reasons.

Global warming and and climate change has been turned into a lip service as there's no clear cut plain to reduce these harmful gases into the environment
The truth is the rich countries who are the highest contributors to climate change are not disturb by it yet

The paradox is that global climate change will disproportionately affect poor countries that already live in hot climates.
According to grim new estimates, in the current century alone, about one billion people will die from various disasters caused by global warming, most of whom are poor and residents of the southern countries of the world.
Scientists argue that we must take decisive action on energy policy to radically curb carbon emissions.

In addition, we still do not have sufficiently efficient technologies to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The few plants currently operating are capable of absorbing such a meager amount of pollutant that it is literally unnoticeable in the overall gigantic scale of emissions. The US is going to build several new and much more powerful plants to collect carbon dioxide for $1.2 billion, but this will take a long time and still will not be enough to neutralize all the volumes that even the country itself emits, not to mention everything else world. In addition, there remains methane, which has a much worse impact on the planet than CO2, and we still have no solution for it.

Today we have several agreements between countries aimed at reducing carbon emissions. But this is not to say that they are very successful. Moreover, not all countries take part in them.
It seems that humanity has once again outwitted itself and is confidently marching towards the abyss...

The synthetic solutions adopted by certain nations which tend to cost more and are less affordable to others will have greater negative effect than nations avoiding issues that actually cause the so called climate change.
Simple obedience to the Words of the CREATOR of this World and the whole Universe will cost little to nothing and will help mankind live naturally and respect nature and fellow man. Once this is done, the Shield that covers Earth will become strong and the world will heal.

Synthetic solutions actually contribute to problems because they are made by people or things with narrow view of things. It's like giving a blind man a contract to get couple of pigs cleaned, he rubs them powder and sprays perfume to mask their strong odor. And Ofcourse, the other blind men were so impressed by the pigs nice smell that they adopted the solution for the rest of the society

There is no way that industrialized countries would stop investing on industrial actions regardless of the dangers in poses on the environment of that particular region because of the benefits these industrial activities also brings to mankind the only thing a country can do is not regulate the exposure of emissions of industrial actions to the atmosphere.

In my country, due to industrial actions like gas flaring have made the ozone layers to be melted thereby allowing the sun to fall directly on residents in such region because the ozone layers stands as shield that makes the sun not to fall directly on people thereby individuals in this region experiences high intensity of heat and it causes quick rust of the roofs of a building since the sun is falling directly without any shield again.

There are times when these companies, increases the flame very high such that it would even cause more disturbance to people within that area so if the government can regulate the nature with which these industrial actions should be carried then I don't think it would get to the extent of causing climate changes though climate change is inevitable as it can also come from natural occurrence.

I agree with you on this matter. We currently have leaders who are not concerned about the issues affecting us as followers or the masses. instead, they prioritize their own interests. They focus solely on activities that benefit their pockets, without considering the potential negative impacts on the environment or our livelihoods.

In contrast to the leaders of the past who prioritized the interests of the people and the nation, today's leaders exhibit a starkly different characteristic. Unfortunately, we tend to overlook this trait when selecting leaders. Instead of evaluating their performance, trajectory, and track record of tolerance and humanity, we often concentrate on the personal gains we stand to receive from them.

While I cannot speak for other nations, this is the reality in our part of the world. People place more emphasis on the financial power of leaders and what they can offer during elections. Consequently, we are unable to hold them fully accountable for their inability to prioritize the needs of the people.

This situation has led to leaders accumulating debts during campaigns and struggling to repay them with interest to their associates. They often misuse public funds, which should be allocated to projects, to settle these debts. In our region, there are political financiers who invest heavily in promising political candidates, expecting substantial returns on their investments through high interest rates.


Such situations compel us to questions like, who are these countries, what are their interests, and why are they involved in these carbon emmission initiatives? Some of them advocate for climate change reforms and other things, yet they contribute to the problems. How can we address these issues?

Many countries in Africa, particularly those in West Africa, face climate change challenges due to poor management of carbon dioxide emissions. This has adverse effects on the environmental health of their populations. Despite these challenges, leaders often prioritize personal gain over addressing the needs of their people. They focus on profiting from intervention funds and programs rather than implementing solutions.

In some parts of Africa, especially those near the Mediterranean Sea, flooding has caused widespread destruction, leaving many homeless and increasing the prevalence of diseases related to carbon emissions. Despite the availability of programs aimed at addressing these issues, leaders fail to take advantage of them, prioritizing financial gain over real solutions to pressing problems.

This is a crucial flaw in the current carbon market system. It's evident that the original intent, to combat climate change by incentivizing emissions reductions, is being undermined by the loophole of purchasing carbon credits. This not only allows richer countries to continue polluting but also exacerbates the environmental injustices faced by poorer nations.

Indeed, the focus should shift towards stringent measures aimed at reducing emissions globally rather than relying on purchasing quotas to justify further pollution. Developing equitable frameworks that prioritize emissions reductions across all nations, with support mechanisms for those most affected by climate change, is imperative for genuine progress in combating this global crisis.

Yes, the practice of purchasing quotas for the right to further pollute the environment has nothing to do with the fight against climate change and harmful emissions. There should be no standards for such emissions; the world community needs to develop measures for states to reduce air pollution as much as possible. There can be no other options.

so your angry that trees convert smog into soil

so you want less soil, less tree's, less recyclable material.. less regenerative material... but dont want to stop your s17 miner being hosted at a fossil burning asic farm not making ROI(your own admissions over many topics else where)

hmm
seems soil must have done something bad to you in childhood to prefer soil erosion and keep carbon in the air

..
i did have to laugh where you think energy, matter "it would go away" even highschool maths knows all energy and matter doesnt disappear, it just changes its form.. most basic change is gas to solid

Which is basically a fine without future consequences, you pay a ticket and you're on the way, free cross the lien again!
Of course considering it a tax is more appropriate but the way big guys producing tons of carbon and coming in the end as "green" just because they pay up it's more like those rich kids not caring about a 100euros fine while driving 250kmh though the city.


That's one bit of the problem, if trees would consume that carbon and it would go away, but the problem is that when trees and trees decompose the whole thing is back in the natural cycle, that's why I hate when some companies claim they have done god know what marvelous deed by planting 100 trees.


Well, let's look at the bright side, China is already over peak population and India will follow pretty soon, some state are already below replacement levels, the change will be more drastically in the so called 3rd world countries and far more abruptly, I doubt we could screw the planet beyond making it livable in a decade or two, it won't be as nice as before but hardly SF movie levels.

Carbon credits are a brilliant idea, but as with many problems of the world it is getting everyone to cooperate with implementation that is the hardest part. The current biggest polluters, places like China and India, argue that they are behind on industrialization and want to catch up, but by the time they've caught up - especially with the scale of their population - we would likely have entered a time of irreversible change. Everyone needs to be signing up now, in a fair way, or we will be long past the point of recovery by the time it gets working.

I think its funny because I don't think the poor countries even know this market exists and it's them that will be more affected since they are the ones who couldn't build industries while the rich countries today are buying to enable their industries.

Looking at it as a whole since 1930s, these big countries are already contributing to climate change and global heat while the poor countries do not even have highways where cars are running. Do you mean to say, that these poor countries will remain as is while the rich countries will still continue to contribute global heat to worsen climate change because they participated in this carbon market?

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.