The Inexact Science of Carbon Neutrality

snydeq writes "Sustainable IT's Ted Samson raises questions regarding the purchasing of carbon offsets, a practice growing in popularity among tech companies such as Dell, Yahoo, and Google in an attempt to achieve 'carbon neutrality.' Essentially financial instruments, carbon offsets enable companies to invest money in sustainable endeavors in an attempt to counteract the carbon footprint they incur conducting their business. But as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal shows, measuring the value of these carbon offsets is tricky business, as some recipients of offsets say the results of their sustainable efforts would be achieved regardless of any one company's investment. 'The question of whether carbon offsets hold value just scratches the surface of the overall carbon-neutrality question,' Samson writes. 'For the time being, there isn't even a consistent approach to measuring an organization's carbon footprint in the first place. And if you don't know how much CO2 you're responsible for, how do you know how much offsetting is necessary to become neutral?'"

Comments

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't anyone watch Penn and Teller? They already covered it.

Re:Bullshit

[NickW1234]

Just because it's on TV doesn't make it true. And just because Penn and Teller call anyone who disagrees with them 4$$holes doesn't add any credibility IMHO. They just found someone from a credible sounding organization who says that everyone else is full of crap and there's no scientific basis. That doesn't mean he's right. There's plenty of credible sounding "environmental" and "science" organizations that are paid by the oil companies to research this stuff. You think they're going to be perfectly scientific and objective when their paycheques are riding on it?

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's on TV doesn't make it true. And just because Penn and Teller call anyone who disagrees with them 4$$holes doesn't add any credibility IMHO. They just found someone from a credible sounding organization who says that everyone else is full of crap and there's no scientific basis. That doesn't mean he's right. There's plenty of credible sounding "environmental" and "science" organizations that are paid by the oil companies to research this stuff. You think they're going to be perfectly scientific and objective when their paycheques are riding on it?

Dude, just shut up. Penn and Teller are awesome and every show they say things like "We are not scientists and we do bullshit examples". The entire point to their show is to make you think and to be skeptical about things. AND YEAH Carbon Credits apply.. they look like a total fraud.

Re:Bullshit

[Arker]

You think they're going to be perfectly scientific and objective when their paycheques are riding on it?

No more than I think that the ones paid by governments and environmental cultists will be.

So to evaluate the arguments one must go further than looking at the fact that research takes money and the provenance of a researchers budget tends to correlate with their opinion on the issue. You have to take a look at the actual scientific merits of the work done.

One doesnt need any particular knowledge of a given field to check whether or not fundamentals of scientific method are being applied and whether arguments are logical and supported or not.

The endless repetition of fallacious arguments such as those referencing 'scientific consensus' (which, even if it did exist on this issue which it clearly does not, is still an entity with precisely ZERO place in the scientific method) by those on one side in particular stands out like a sore thumb. So does the way that political control of funding is exploited to silence skeptical scientists. It is certainly true that most funding for skeptical scientific research on the subject comes from organisations that have a clear vested interest in minimising the issue - but equally clear this is a natural consequence when public funding is provisioned only to those researchers who play ball with the envirocultists. A real scientist in such a situation has no option but to go to the private corporations for funding or retire from the field entirely.

This doesnt mean either side is wrong. If you have multiple funding sources with multiple agendas, each is naturally going to tend to fund researchers that tend to support their agenda. The researchers themselves, if they are good scientists, will simply do the research properly and if it displeases their funding source they'll go to a different source who DID like their results for their next grant - this is much easier said than done, it's inconvenient at best, and runs the risk of failing and leaving the scientist and her family in deep difficulty, but still, if you want to be a scientist that's what you have to do.

If they're NOT good scientists, they'll just play ball and make sure that their reports favour the right side to avoid the issue. To see which one is happening in any individual case, there's no substitute for a critical review of the work itself. Simply correlating results with funding sources doesnt mean anything.

Frankly I dont doubt that human pollution is having and will continue to have consequences on the climate of the planet - I cant think of anyone that does. But that fact tells us nothing about whether the affect is large or small, beneficial or damaging, let alone what, if any, actions would actually moderate or reverse the affects (assuming that doing so is desirable.) Despite that global warming enthusiasts are constantly making policy prescriptions which, just coincidentally, always wind up being that we should do what environmental cultists have always wanted to do for their own religious reasons.

The logical conclusion is that these people are full of %*!&, particularly when they claim to be scientists (to be a scientist is to understand and implement the scientific method, not to wear a lab coat and have a 'sciencey' job title,) and if they happen to be getting anything right in their predictions at all, it's an accident.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

Excellent you are appealing to the scientific method and skepticisim, and failing to use either.

BTW: Consensus is an integral part of science, it's implied every time you hear the phrase "scientists say". Now go and use your skepticisim to find out what the overwhelming majority of scientists actually say on the subject and get back to us when you can scientifically refute one or more of the three claims that are made by EVERY national science body on the planet.

Re:Bullshit

[Daniel Dvorkin]

One doesnt need any particular knowledge of a given field to check whether or not fundamentals of scientific method are being applied and whether arguments are logical and supported or not.

Oh really? Are you competent to evaluate controversial issues in high-energy physics? Synthetic organic chemistry? Structural bioinformatics? Or is it only in regards to climatology where you think you have some magical insight which people who have worked and studied in the field for years lack?

'scientific consensus' (which, even if it did exist on this issue which it clearly does not,

A vast majority of the world's working climatologists isn't a consensus? I'm curious as to what you would consider constituting a consensus. 99%? 99.9%? Would you insist that there is no consensus so long as there is one dissenting voice, no matter how much of a crank that dissenter might be?

is still an entity with precisely ZERO place in the scientific method)

With regard to the methods of science, you're partly right -- obviously it's true that science isn't done by consensus, else no new science would ever be done at all. (I say "partly" because all scientists in the modern world build on the knowledge gained by their predecessors, and that knowledge is passed on by, yes, consensus in the field.) But with regard to the body of knowledge we call "science," you're dead wrong. Politicians aren't scientists. Lobbyists aren't scientists. Activists, as a rule, aren't scientists. Hell, when it comes to dealing with fields outside their expertise, scientists aren't scientists; my opinion as a bioinformatician is of absolutely no more import to the climatological debate than any other reasonably well-informed layman's, which is to say, not much. Which means that when it comes to setting policy based on science, it is the responsibility of those who do not work in the field to shut up and listen to those who do -- and when scientists in a particular field overwhelmingly agree, those outside the field have absolutely no credibility arguing with them.

So does the way that political control of funding is exploited to silence skeptical scientists. It is certainly true that most funding for skeptical scientific research on the subject comes from organisations that have a clear vested interest in minimising the issue - but equally clear this is a natural consequence when public funding is provisioned only to those researchers who play ball with the envirocultists.

Do you have any evidence for these statements? At all?

to be a scientist is to understand and implement the scientific method, not to wear a lab coat and have a 'sciencey' job title

To refer to "the scientific method" as though it were a single thing is to show that one's understanding of science is limited to half-remembered lessons from high-school "science class." And to imply, as you strongly do, that working scientists aren't really scientists because their results disagree with your politics is to show that you are an ideologue with no interest in science beyond how it can serve your agenda.

Re:Bullshit

[joocemann]

FYI: Science is the act of applying the scientific method. A scientist is a person who applies that method to research. Anything else is not science, so it is not very wise to regard it as such. Do not acknowledge pseudoscience as science; it is not. I know that you know this, but it is best not to even use the term, as people who you communicate with may not correctly understand what is truly science (we have a lot of ignorant people on this planet).

Re:Bullshit

[NickW1234]

Yes, but it's a 2 way street.

You're making the conclusion that "these people are full of %*!&" which is a huge generalization.

No doubt there's a lot of whacko environmental alarmists out there quoting BS pseudoscience and inventing statistics, but that doesn't mean that legit scientists can't come to the same conclusions through proper scientific methods.

If a known compulsive liar says the sky is blue, it doesn't make it any less true.

I don't think anyone knows for certain, and if there is someone out there who's done the science properly and has proof, they'll have a tough time being identified through all the BS on both sides of the argument.

My personal opinion is that "carbon footprint" is just one side of a many sided problem, and that problem is overconsumption of energy and materials.

Even if global warming does turn out to be untrue or isn't a big enough problem to worry about, energy use and pollution are issues that should be taken care of.

When you take care of them, you'll reduce carbon emissions anyways, and probably a lot more long term than buying carbon credits ever will.

Re:Bullshit

[timmarhy]

please link us to proof that every national science body on the planet agrees, or you just shot yourself in the foot.

Re:Bullshit

[Roger W Moore]

Are you competent to evaluate controversial issues in high-energy physics?

Well yes, I am but that is not really the point. The point is are scientific methods being applied? Although I am high energy physicist and not a climatologist, it should be possible for a climatologist to provide convincing and conclusive evidence that humans are unambiguously the cause of the recent global warming. You have to be an expert to come up with the data and its interpretation but if you cannot explain the resulting evidence to a fellow scientist, even one outside your field, there is something wrong.

The problem with global warming (as I understand it) is that there is conflicting evidence as to the cause. So far I have not heard an expert on either side of the debate come up with convincing arguments to explain the other side's evidence. The conclusion I am therefore forced to reach is that we do not understand why the Earth is warming at the moment. Having had a chance to talk with an expert in a climate related field a couple of weeks ago this was his conclusion too.

So, I would disagree strongly with your '99%' concensus number and, while we should certainly respect and listen to the experts in the field, that does not mean that we cannot question them, especially when there is no concensus.

Re:Bullshit

[jonbryce]

Well there are people in England at the moment who are saying that global warming can't possibly be happening because it is very cold in the South of England at the current moment in time. The coldest it has been for about 20 years.

It is cold at the moment, colder than in for example Scotland, Greenland and Antarctica.

Trying to get them to understand the difference between "climate" and "weather", and the fact that it is global average temperatures that are increasing, is impossible. Instead they focus on today's temperatures in some little corner of England. The fact that today's temperatures in a little corner of Scotland are unseasonably warm doesn't matter though.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

How about you do your own research and find a counter example, just one will do.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's *summer* in Antarctica.

Re:Bullshit

[Arker]

BTW: Consensus is an integral part of science,

No it isnt.

it's implied every time you hear the phrase "scientists say".

Which is why that phrase is one which only tends to come out of the mouths of people who can't distinguish between 'scientific' and 'sciencey.'

Re:Bullshit

[UltraAyla]

While I agree with what TapeCutter said about you finding a reputable source that disagrees, I'll still help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Yes, it's wikipedia, but it is extremely well cited, so believe it.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

They should just wait until climate change stops the gulf stream current. I bet it gets REALLY cold in England then.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

Congratulations, a well reasoned and genuinely skeptical post. Your self-confesed ignorance also implies you are intellectually honest but unfortunately it has let you down in a few places.

There is no consensus: just plain wrong

"So far I have not heard an expert on either side of the debate come up with convincing arguments to explain the other side's evidence." - Try here or here. There are very slim picking on the other side of the fence, but here is a list of individual scientists that disagree with all or part of the consensus.

"The problem with global warming (as I understand it) is that there is conflicting evidence as to the cause." - Multiple uncertainties are catered for by the error bars in this graph of known forcings. There is generally more uncertainty and possibly unknowns in the +ve/-ve feedbacks caused by these forcings although some such as water vapour are well known.

To cut a long story short, humans are NOT responsible for ALL the changes (eg solar flux in the graph above) but we are responsible for most of it. Most so called "skeptics" I have read over the last 25yrs or so subscribe to the "single cause" idea and build their strawmen by painting climatologists with the same brush.

Note that the list of skeptics link also defines the "the consensus" and is worth quoting...

The scientific consensus was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:
1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 C per decade in the last 30 years.
2.There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
3.If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 C to 5.8 C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise of 9 cm to 88 cm, excluding "uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet". On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

and, just coincidentally, I do claim you to be american.
whilst all arguments that we can throw pro or con against, it all boils down to one simple declaration, or even decision - are we willing to investigate WTF this is all about, or would we rather, as you beautifully and most elaborately demonstrate, *not* TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT THE FUCK WE ARE ACTUALLY DEALING WITH?!

y'see, this is what I see. I have long enough tolerated the yanks with their "omg evolution isn't true! believe in jesus!"-crap and again, as a current example, the "omg there is no greenhouse-effect! believe in industry!"

whichever it may be, I always always, fucking, always, smell an absolutely distinctive "we don't care about your opinion". whilst you may just be me, the county of new jersey, the former british empire, or the european might - YOU, SIR, SHALL ONE DAY HAVE TO REDEEM YOURSELF!
it aint all "oh don't worry, we're american - it HAS to work out for us!".

on your fucking head be it! on your fucking head. (I will claim when time comes.)

Re:Bullshit

[Arker]

Oh really? Are you competent to evaluate controversial issues in high-energy physics?

Only to the extent of being able to spot certain grosser errors. I'm sure there would be many errors that could be made in the more obscure corners of the field that would fly right by me. So this means that if I see a clear logical error that is NOT over my head, I'm supposed to just trust the supposed expert that made it? I dont think so. Quite the opposite. If he makes a mistake I can catch that's just more reason to think he's making plenty of others I can't.

Synthetic organic chemistry? Structural bioinformatics? Or is it only in regards to climatology where you think you have some magical insight which people who have worked and studied in the field for years lack?

I didnt claim any such 'magical insight' and you know it.

Are you really claiming that only someone with specialised experience in physics is qualified to point out errors in the arithmetic in a physics paper? So if A is a physicist and B is a mathematician, and B says A's paper makes an error in a given calculation, you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore him until a qualified physicist makes the same observation? That's the modus operandi of a priesthood or a beaureacracy, not of a scientist.

A fundamental characteristic of science is that it relies on logic. Logical errors in ANY field can be fatal to claims which rely on them.

With regard to the methods of science, you're partly right -- obviously it's true that science isn't done by consensus, else no new science would ever be done at all. (I say "partly" because all scientists in the modern world build on the knowledge gained by their predecessors, and that knowledge is passed on by, yes, consensus in the field.) But with regard to the body of knowledge we call "science," you're dead wrong.

If the body of 'knowledge' you call science is characterised by testing propositions for truth by polling workers in a certain field on their opinion, rather than by rigorously testing the logical consequences of those propositions against empirical data, it is neither scientific nor is it knowledge.

Which means that when it comes to setting policy based on science, it is the responsibility of those who do not work in the field to shut up and listen to those who do

Not just a very unscientific statement, but in fact an actively anti-scientific statement. Just because you get paid to work in a field clearly does not ensure that you do that work in a scientifically valid and meaningful way. In fact, if anything, the opposite argument can be made, and clearly applies in some cases. Funding sources may not, quite often do not, understand, or care, about scientific rigor.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

Since you claim consensus has no place in science I can only assume you have never heard of the republic of science?

[The phrase "scientists say"] is one which only tends to come out of the mouths of people who can't distinguish between 'scientific' and 'sciencey.'

No, it comes from rational people who understand they cannot possible know every question let alone all the answers. These people are pointing to the current state of knowledge in said republic.

BTW: How do you distinguish between 'scientific' and 'sciencey' because all you have offered so far are platitudes, unsupported assertions, and ad-homs?

Re:Bullshit

[DrFalkyn]

Well there are people in England at the moment who are saying that global warming can't possibly be happening because it is very cold in the South of England at the current moment in time. The coldest it has been for about 20 years.

It is cold at the moment, colder than in for example Scotland, Greenland and Antarctica.

Trying to get them to understand the difference between "climate" and "weather", and the fact that it is global average temperatures that are increasing, is impossible. Instead they focus on today's temperatures in some little corner of England. The fact that today's temperatures in a little corner of Scotland are unseasonably warm doesn't matter though.

Actually there is one theory that the UK and much of Western Europe is going to get *colder*, because the melting of ice will shut down the Atlantic currents which keep those areas abnormally warm given its latitude.

Re:Bullshit

[z-j-y]

but one warm winter definitely proves global warming.

Re:Bullshit

[z-j-y]

and even though that brings down global average temperature, it is still global warming.

Re:Bullshit

[Arker]

You're making the conclusion that "these people are full of %*!&" which is a huge generalization.

Well, by 'these people' I intended to refer only to 'global warming enthusiasts' who also make certain public policy prescriptions on the basis of evidence that clearly does not properly support those prescriptions. Not anyone else. With that reading, I maintain that, yes, they are indeed full of it. I realise I wasnt very clear in the first post with that phrase, however.

As I said, I dont see any problem with the notion that our emissions affect climate - I dont consider that controversial at all. But there is a HUGE set of intervening steps between that and justifying any prescriptions.

No doubt there's a lot of whacko environmental alarmists out there quoting BS pseudoscience and inventing statistics, but that doesn't mean that legit scientists can't come to the same conclusions through proper scientific methods.

This is very true. It is also something I believe I stated in other words in my own post. Perhaps again I was less clear than I would wish.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that's just not true. Yes it is exceptionally cold in England just now, but Scotland's temperatures are below normal too. Move along - no heat here.

Re:Bullshit

[Yokaze]

> There is no consensus: just plain wrong

Why? Because there is a list of on wikipedia of rougly 50 scientists, which disagree? Because 20 scientific organisations (which include the medical and microbiological societies), do not clearly state, there is human induced global warming?

May I refer to your source, where the latest survey reveal a roughly 3/4-majority among geophysics and meteorologists in agreement with human-induced greenhouse warming in the US (a nation rather sceptical of climate change), which is consistent with a previous survey in publications, which resulted in 3/4 papers either explicitly refering to human-induced climate change or implying it and not a single scientific publication arguing in favour of a non-human induced global climate change.

Re:Bullshit

[TheCage]

So when there was a consensus that the earth was the center of the solar system, the people who believed that were being scientific?

Re:Bullshit

[Mashiki]

Why do people continue to link to the IPCC? When the scientists themselves continue to leave because data is being rubber stamped instead of being peer reviewed. My personal favorite is when scientists from different fields do research on non-specific areas and it's rubber stamped. Well I suppose it makes for good money, well that and it's lovely circus effect. We all love a good circus.

Lets not forget that global warming is an industry now, don't support it? You're not going to get tenure, funding and you're just going to be a broke sucker working out of your garage if you're lucky.

You want sources do your own research. It's out there, stop looking for the rubber stamps.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

Imperfect does not mean useless. Science is the art of building models, the models must be such that a resonable person can be pursuaded to agree that the model reflecs reality by using logic and observations, it does not and never has claimed certainty. The greek model of which you speak remaind more accurate than Copernicus for several decades, which model would you have used to navigate with?

Re:Bullshit

[ultranova]

Although I am high energy physicist and not a climatologist, it should be possible for a climatologist to provide convincing and conclusive evidence that humans are unambiguously the cause of the recent global warming.

The only way to unambiguously prove the correlation between two variables is to carry out multiple experiments where only one of these variables changes. On Earth, that's simply impossible: a lot of variables are changing all the time.

However, what is known is that the global average temperatures seem to correlate with the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that there is a simple model which explains this, and that we are constantly pumping a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Given this, I really don't think there's any scientific reason to doubt that there is, indeed, global warming going on and that we are at least one of the causes, probably the most important one (due to the correlation).

The problem with global warming (as I understand it) is that there is conflicting evidence as to the cause. So far I have not heard an expert on either side of the debate come up with convincing arguments to explain the other side's evidence. The conclusion I am therefore forced to reach is that we do not understand why the Earth is warming at the moment

In a system as complex as climate, there can be multiple causes for any observed phenomena. "Humans are causing global warming" in no way conflicts with "the Sun's output is rising and that is causing global warming".

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

does it really matter what the cause is, or 'weather' we can stop it?

isn't it simply worthwhile to continuously pursue a better/healthy way to live?... even if occasionally you have to take a step backward in order to figure out the next best step forward (like organic food over GM food, until we know the consequences, et cetera).

Re:Bullshit

[Shivetya]

I can easily ignore the global warming is caused by man fanatics by looking at average temperature charts by simply going back a thousand years. I can also ignore them for the last ten or so years as average temperatures have gone down. Yet if I bring it up I am bound to get shouted down or told I am ignorant of some previously not mentioned study that has a bullshit agency behind it with an official sounding name.

The fact is, temperatures do matter regardless of how isolated the locale is. Why? Because it goes to show that any measurement that does not take into fact changes which fall outside the accepted model are invalid themselves. Sorry, but we cannot ignore data about temperature spikes on either side. It just doesn't work that way.

It really comes down to one thing, whom does it benefit if one side is right versus the other? Who is making the real money on this? I will answer that, the environmentalist have been essentially taken over by big money. It wasn't too long ago when most corporations ignored "green" or offsets or whatever, but once they found how to make money on it they were more willing to play ball. Go look at the majority of people pontificating we are the cause then look to where they make their money, either direct or indirect, I am quite sure you will find out that their view is what it is because it supports their lifestyle, which usually expends so much resources to be contrary to everything they preach but damn if they don't have one thousand exceptions as to why "they" are allowed such. (then throw in the thousands of supporters who don't know the difference between Celsius an Fahrenheit and you get cult like followings and logic)

Re:Bullshit

[giafly]

Yes. Being scientific is not the same as being right, it means basing your conclusions on the currently available evidence.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

I think you have hold of the wrong end of the stick. The words "There is no consensus" was a quote from the GP, the link was an easy refutation.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

This is wonderfull, I get modded troll for firing back at an insult and the parent's "No it isn't" argument is modded +5 insightfull.

Re:Bullshit

[Talderas]

Even if global warming does turn out to be untrue or isn't a big enough problem to worry about, energy use and pollution are issues that should be taken care of.

When you take care of them, you'll reduce carbon emissions anyways, and probably a lot more long term than buying carbon credits ever will.

I doubt you would be able to find a single person who believes global warming isn't man-made who also believes we shouldn't reduce energy use and pollution. I'm all for it since it means a potentially healthier life as well as reduced electrical bills due to lower consumption.

What you need to realize is that the debate doesn't really concern itself with the science. It's a political debate, not a scientific one. Those on one side want the government to implement all these policies like carbon credits and cap and trade, while the other side doesn't. Back before this recession I was wary of implementing all this legislature that would directly increase the costs of business or reduce their opportunities. Now with the recession I'm right against most of these policy ideas since I don't believe our economy could afford to take them on right now.

Further, I believe the "think of the children" argument as applied to global warming is utter BS. Since when have our politicians ever done anything for the children. If they did care about the children, they'd go and fix the fucking social security system so their children can collect from it when they get old.

Re:Bullshit

[FireStormZ]

Here is the problem:

Saying 'there is scientific consensus so it must be true' by its very nature is basing nothing on evidence rather its basing it on others interpretations of the evidence (or their interpretations of others interpretations of someone who looked at the evidence)

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

"You want sources do your own research. It's out there, stop looking for the rubber stamps."

Out whe...,is that you Mulder?

Re:Bullshit

[skoony]

it going to be around 0 degree's F. here all week. the ice caps have re froze.and the polar bear was never in danger.
the artic seals were in danger.less ice,seals are more crowded too.
who wins that battle the seal or the polar bear?
of course if the caps were still melting,5 years out then the polar bear would be in danger having depleted its food source.
learned this 35 years ago in grade school.
england colder than antartica?
okie dokie.
freezing and snowing regards
minnesnowdian

Re:Bullshit

[indifferent children]

I don't think anyone knows for certain, and if there is someone out there who's done the science properly and has proof, they'll have a tough time being identified through all the BS on both sides of the argument.

And that is what the oil companies purchased when they funded research to cast doubt on climate change. They shouldn't get any credit for original thought, though; the tobacco companies did this dance for decades, casting doubt on both lung cancer causation, and nicotine's addictiveness.

Re:Bullshit

[JWW]

That because their comment was insightful.

I think you are confusing "Consensus" with "repeating experimental results." If scientists agree because they've gotten the same results in similar experiments, thats a big deal. If scientists agree because they have the same opinions, that means nothing.

Consensus is worth nothing to science. Repeated experimental results are of upmost importance.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

And here's the bit you are missing:

Nowhere have I said or implied 'it must be true', nor would any scientist, including the ones who drafted the consensus we are talking about.

Science is NOT the road to "truth", that would imply certainty and thus science would be just another religion. Science does not "prove" anything, it supplies us with the most usefull and elegant model of the universe we have and is constantly working to improve that model using testable hypothisis'. The "best answer" for any scientific question at any point in time is found in the current consensus which in the case of AGW is periodically derived from the continually improving body of evidence science builds up over time.

When climatologists refer to "the consensus" they mean the explicitly stated consensus found in the latest IPCC assesment. These statements actualy tend to be conservative since that is the nature of any agreement made by 2500 scientists who are representing scientific organizations such as those in the WP list I posted in another comment in this thread.

If you want raw data to look for yourself, as I have, then the internet is littered with the stuff these days. Some obvious places to start are the IPCC, UK Met office, NASA, NOAA, NISDC, WMO, CSIRO and virtually any university you can think of. The scientific method demands you falsify the assertions in the current consensus or admit you can't, all the "authorities" I have just pointed out would love to falsify any one of them because that's the way science (and this thread) can progress.

Re:Bullshit

[HardCase]

This is wonderfull, I get modded troll for firing back at an insult and the parent's "No it isn't" argument is modded +5 insightfull.

Now that's the surest way I know of to garner a nice handful of "-1, Troll" mods. Well played, sir.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Well said.

Re:Bullshit

[Grym]

The problem with this issue is that a great number of people fundamentally misunderstand the methodology of Science. The fact that so many have referenced "The Scientific Method" as if it is some sort of hard-and-fast rule that applies to the daily lives and work of research scientists in any field is quite telling. That notion is naive and absurd. The Scientific Method is merely a grade school-level thinking exercise meant to exemplify a systematic approach to understanding the world. Saying you can't trust the work of a scientist who doesn't follow the Scientific Method would be like saying "You can't run a football without an I formation." Neither of those statements makes any sense. The only difference is that most Americans know a thing or two about football and would laugh off the latter as sheer ignorance but, when it comes to the former, because they themselves are ignorant, they silently nod their heads in agreement.

"Are you really claiming that only someone with specialised experience in physics is qualified to point out errors in the arithmetic in a physics paper? ... If the body of 'knowledge' you call science is characterised by testing propositions for truth by polling workers in a certain field on their opinion, rather than by rigorously testing the logical consequences of those propositions against empirical data, it is neither scientific nor is it knowledge."

This is the essence of the problem, the modern form of anti-intellectualism at its most narcissistic. To the poster, the "Scientific Body of Knowledge" is just an informal opinion poll of eggheads, so where should his opinion come in? And what do eggheads know anyway? Why, the problem is probably in their arithmetic somewhere... If only someone with commonsense, such as himself, were to look at it, they would spot error immediately, but he has better things to do. Climatologists should just go back to chasing butterflies in fields or whatever is they do and leave him and his way of life the hell alone.

-Grym

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

I think you are confusing "Consensus" with "repeating experimental results"

No, I contend "repeating experimental results" is the same thing as "scientific consensus".

There are many versions of "the consensus on AGW" to be found on the net, but in climate science "the consensus" specifically refers to a set of assertions in the IPCC reports derived from "repeating experimental results". The idea that humans can alter the climate via CO2 emmissions (AGW) is over a hundered years old and the basic experimental evidence of the physics that gave rise to the idea is slighly older. The research that has been conducted since then by scientific organisations and universities dwarfs the effort expended on the LHC. Even so it took until the 90's before a clear consesus on AGW emerged amoungst those doing the experiments and thier peers, due in no small part to the advent of sattelites and super-computing.

In other words, the specific assertions contained in "the consensus" serve as a challenge to real skeptics (scientists) and an inconvienience to psuedo-skeptics.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.
Could you please come to Oregon and save us from our Carbon Credit governator, who has appointed a buddy that has a carbon credit business to run the committee and make decisions on this issue for the state.......

Re:Bullshit

[Yokaze]

Sorry, I stand corrected.

Re:Bullshit

[scot4875]

Great point, but where are all these simple arithmetic errors that you've spotted?

Oh, you haven't found any? All you have are vague accusations that the scientific method isn't being followed?

--Jeremy

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"The conclusion I am therefore forced to reach is that we do not understand why the Earth is warming at the moment. Having had a chance to talk with an expert in a climate related field a couple of weeks ago this was his conclusion too."

How about that yellow ball of fire in the sky? It, and it alone is the cause of any warming on our planet.

Re:Bullshit

[scot4875]

No, the warmer air from one part of the world just won't be circulated to the colder parts of the world any more.

Let's try a simple analogy:

I have a basket of apples in my house. It has a hole in the side that lets some of the apples fall out. One day I fill it with 20 apples, and 5 of the apples spill through the hole onto the table. I still have 20 apples in my house. So, between the two locations (basket and table), I have an average of 10 apples.

Another day, I fix the hole and fill the basket with 30 apples. Now I have 30 apples in the house but 0 on the table. Are you claiming that I have fewer apples total because there are none on the table? My average is now 15 apples per location, even though one has 0.

Now, in case you couldn't follow the analogy, the apples are heat, the house is Earth, the basket is the ocean, and the hole is ocean currents. There's a higher global average temperature EVEN THOUGH some areas get colder. Get it? Have you covered averages in school yet?

--Jeremy

Re:Bullshit

[Roger W Moore]

There is no consensus: just plain wrong

An interesting link but your second link contains a substantial list of names who do not agree with the majority opinion. I would make a clear distinction between majority and consensus. As a non-expert it concerns me that there is such a long list of apparent experts who disagree with the majority opinion. Looking at my own field you would certainly not be able to find such a list of people who disagreed with the existence of, say, quarks. Perhaps a concensus is forming but it seems premature to say that there is one.

In addition these people are not making crazy-sounding arguments. For example I understood that the CO2-temperature relationship from ice samples now showed that the temperature rose BEFORE the CO2 level rose. I've yet to hear of any explanation as to why it is this way around (from either camp). There also needs to be some explanation of the causes of past sudden drops in temperature e.g. the little ice age in Europe that caused famine, froze the Thames etc. in medieval times. If we cannot explain that, before there was any industrial pollution, then how can we claim to know what is causing the current rise? ...and if you can explain these issues convincingly why do you let the media get away with not covering the counter argument?

You are right that the problem is my lack of expertise but producing a plot showing forcings or other model derived data is not convincing unless you can first convince me that you really can model the climate accurately....and given the apparent huge variation in models from different experts that seems unlikely.

In summary I would say that, on a balance of probability, it seems more likely that we are significantly affecting the climate than not. So I would mark it as cause for concern and something we should certain aim to avoid where possible. However the current proposed action is that we need to spend billions and billions of dollars, completely rearrange our economy etc. etc. To argue for that much upheaval you need a rock solid argument not a balance of probability argument, much like you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to send someone to prison...and as long as there are a reasonable number of experts making (to the non-expert) logical, reasoned arguments against the majority opinion there will probably always be reasonable doubt, at least for non-experts.

Re:Bullshit

[NickW1234]

Yep, I just wanted to emphasize that there are legit scientists hypothesizing on both sides. Not everyone's a corporate shill or a crazy eco-cultist.

I agree too that it's too early to start making laws specifically for climate change.

Any laws based on environmental reasons need to be well thought out. As an example of a huge failure: California's Volatile Organic Compound regulations don't allow electronics cleaners to contain more than 75% VOCs. So, 99% isopropyl alcohol is no-go.

Common HFC Propellants 134A and 152A are exempt.

So, in order to bring down their Isopropyl electronics cleaners to 75%VOC, manufacturers are mixing the alcohol down to 75% with a propellant and selling it as an aerosol instead.

Same amount of alcohol vapour gets into the air, but now they have to add some greenhouse gasses to make it legal.

http://www.mgchemicals.com/news/newsletterQ8/article101206.html

And, as briefly mentioned in that Penn and Teller episode, there's the whole DDT thing. Mass overuse of DDT was an environmental problem, so it was banned outright.

Not a huge problem here in North America, but in many parts of the world where malaria is a serious problem, they lost one of the best defenses, and a lot of people died, and are still dying.

Environmental laws are important, but they need to be properly planned, and not hastily implemented by politicians who know nothing about it, except that it makes them look "green" and gets votes.

Re:Bullshit

[Mashiki]

Only on the Vernal Equinox, when it falls on Tuesdays, with a full moon, with a fresh patch of snow. Perhaps, just perhaps while a troop of wondering gypsy's go by singing.

Otherwise, no.

Re:Bullshit

[leereyno]

I could not have said it better myself. But I'm going to try anyway.

Science is comprised of those conjectures that can be falsified but which have withstood any and all attempts to do so. A conjecture that is not testable cannot be falsified and is therefore not part of science. The testable conjectures that cannot be falsified, no matter how hard we try, are what we call scientific theories. Science is a method of finding the truth by excluding all that is not true. Consensus has nothing to do with it.

So when someone starts talking about consensus in science, they are demonstrating not only their own ignorance of the topic at hand, but of the philosophy of science itself.

Only dogma, superstition, and untestable ideologies claim consensus, which is really nothing more than implied peer pressure, to back up their claims. Appeals to the crowd or to false authority are logical fallacies and are fundamentally invalid.

Re:Bullshit

[ZFox]

From your link, I like the reasoning the American Association of Petroleum Geologists used to change their stance to "non-committal" from dissenting:

"AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that "Members have threatened to not renew their memberships ... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change".

Makes you wonder (okay, maybe just me) what motivates the organizations' consensus stances.

Although, I'm really just playing devil's advocate here, I do think there is way too much group-think on the subject--from both sides.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad that's cleared up.

Here's some evidence about my car's gas mileage.
Let's have some non-randomly selected people vote on it in order to make a "scientific" conclusion about it.

21 mpg
20 mpg
19 mpg
20 mpg
19 mpg
20 mpg

Re:Bullshit

[coolsnowmen]

Lets not forget that global warming is an industry now, don't support it? You're not going to get tenure, funding and you're just going to be a broke sucker working out of your garage if you're lucky.

Meh, that was the point of tenure though.
People w/o tenure have always had to worry about the politics, whether that be from w/in the school or how what they teach/say/research affects the university. It is only once you have tenure that you can't get fired for your political thoughts.

Re:Bullshit

[ZiggyM]

Hmm, they "claim to be scientists"? PLEASE! of course the is scientific consensus about global warming. Take a look at this:

All answers for global warming sceptics:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

and in particular to this section:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.php

where you will find that the following groups endorse the global warming theory:

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academié des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Academia Brasiliera de CiÃncias (Bazil)

...among others.

Definitely take a look at the first link if you want to know how to talk to a global warming sceptic.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire concept of CO2 as a pollutant is a fucking fraud. I was sadly disappointed that P&T didn't go all the way down that road and call bullshit on the whole idea of global warming. They almost got there, then went all wishy-washy at the end and tried to skirt around it by claiming "no one knows if it's true or not".

This shit can be measured, and the measurements soundly disprove it. What the hell else do these idiots want? Duh, the climate changes. NO, it isn't our fault. People need to stop being so goddamned arrogant.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

Just to be clear the second list is made up from individuals while the first only contains scientific organizations, it excludes universities and individuals, including them would make the list unmanageably large. I don't know of a single reputable scientific organisation or university that is seriously at odds with "the consensus", certainly none appear in the list I offered although some of the individuals do hold respectable positions. An interesting excersice is to cross-check the claims of the individual skeptic with the organisations they work for.

As to your questions both have been around for many years and have been thouroughly debunked, but I will have a go. The first one about CO2 levels rising after the ice melts in an ice age is true but the claim that it is evidence against AGW is false. The regularly reccuring ice ages are caused by Earth's orbit (solar forcing), as the ice melts so does the permafrost. The melting permafrost relaeses methane which rapidly breaks down into CO2. Therefore CO2 goes up (feeds back) and ADDS to the warming caused by the shift in orbit. In otherwords CO2 is normally a feedback and that feedback mechanisim will compound the warming from our emmissions (human forcing). None of this refutes the physics that says CO2 is a GHG, nor does it refute the temprature rise expected from increased CO2. What it does tell us is that nature will add to our CO2 spike as the permafrost melts because of our CO2 spike. Personally I think the last sentance is the reason psudeo-skeptics continue to push this particular red-herring in the media.

The medieval warm period and the little icse age are different events and are the favorite fodder of media outlets such as the WSJ, they were real questions at one time and are much harder to debunk, so other than saying the conclusions are from proxy records I will just point to the RC links.

As for accuracy of the models, they have error bars but have a skim though the IPCC reports particlularly the SPM. Being a computer scientists my favorite model link is this movie of a single simulated year from Japan's Earth simulator.

"if you can explain these issues convincingly why do you let the media get away with not covering the counter argument?"

Good question, it's not from lack of trying by those involved and coverage by the media is usually a bit better outside the US (eg:BBC). The two questions you asked are not easy to understand for many people, maybe a better question is why do some people in the skeptics list get so much repeated media attention for their red-herrings and esoteric but misinformed details, despite both points being thouroughly debunked time and again? For instance why do we currently keep hearing about how cold it is the last couple of years when the fact is the hottest 10yrs on record (global average) have all occured in the last 12yrs? Why are the opinion columns (eg: WSJ) full of people who deny the Arctic sea ice is dissapearing when half of it's area and most of it's volume has already gone in just under half my lifetime? Why does the media constantly focus on rising oceans and hurricanes when (IMHO) the major threat from AGW is to agriculture and marine stocks?

I have been refering to the consensus in ambiguious terms above, however when a climatologists refers to "the consensus" they are usually referring to the falsifyable (and IMHO conservative) assertions in the IPCC reports. For seven years now many media outlets have failed to pick that up as

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

Those members are geologists, enough members (scientists) thought that the AAPG was making an unsupported statement that threatening to quit changed said statement but obviously not the opinion of their president (for whatever reason). To answer the devil's implied question I find a conspracy of one easier to belive than a conspiracy of many.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

You have posted a list of conclusions. For future reference this is what evidence looks like.

Re:Bullshit

[TapeCutter]

NP, I like your sig!

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

And, as briefly mentioned in that Penn and Teller episode, there's the whole DDT thing. Mass overuse of DDT was an environmental problem, so it was banned outright.

Not a huge problem here in North America, but in many parts of the world where malaria is a serious problem, they lost one of the best defenses, and a lot of people died, and are still dying.

Um, DDT was never a danger, or "overused" or anything. It was one of the most NON-toxic insecticides ever invented. So those millions who die of malaria? Those deaths are squarely on the shoulders of the asshole politicians (plus that nitwit environmentalist author whose name escapes me at the moment) who pulled some completely incorrect research out of their asses to support banning DDT to save some birds who weren't even in need of saving. Read up on it - the panel that was supposed to decide whether DDT was causing problems had all but closed the case, then suddenly the guy in charge of that decision got sacked and the stuff was banned anyway.

Like I said in a post higher on this page, Penn and Teller should have had the balls to show these environmental nuts for what they are. AGW is complete bullshit, carbon is not a pollutant anyone should buy "offsets" for, and the more politics gets mixed up in this argument the less sense anything is going to make.

We put up solar panels

[ducomputergeek]

I'm not sure about carbon neutral, but we've seen a our power bill go down by 90%. Still, it will take about 4 - 5 years to recoup the investment, but if you view it as a sunk cost, it's freed up a lot of cash flow.

Re:We put up solar panels

[vvaduva]

I am curious, is there a way to calculate the carbon emissions created by the manufacturing, transportation and installation of the panels or have you only done the financial cost/benefit analysis for the project? And if there is a way to calculate it, what are the benefits, if any?

This is a serious question btw.

Re:We put up solar panels

[ducomputergeek]

We didn't even bother to consider it because we didn't do it to be "Green". We did it because we had the cash on hand, the tax write off for the investment expired in December, and by switching to solar we freed up enough money to pay for another developers salary.

Re:We put up solar panels

[sheepofblue]

Yours is the REAL reason to go green. To many get caught in the political nonsense. There is actual ways to lower cost and improve efficiency and those should be done while the other is just window dressing and lies.

I am curious though what is your recoup time without the government (read ME) paying for part?

Re:We put up solar panels

[joocemann]

The benefits are still huge unless some group of villains deliberately vandalizes solar panels and thus shorten the expected life of the panel.

google.

Re:We put up solar panels

[Ferretman]

Excellent! The house I'm building will be powered with 100% solar. I had hopes originally to use wind turbines but there's not enough up there to make it work effectively, unfortunately. Do you have any battery backup, or are you completely grid-tied?

Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[dgatwood]

The whole concept is junk science. It's basically saying that you can urinate in someone's swimming pool if you filter an equal amount of salt out of the ocean.

The real world doesn't work that way. In the real world, local effects are just as bad as global effects, and there's no guarantee that opposite local effects in two places will ever actually cancel each other out. It's a nice way to help people feel good about themselves, but in the grand scheme of things, it is naive to think that carbon offsets, no matter how large, can undo the damage of the carbon you shouldn't have emitted in the first place....

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Eskarel]

Well it's more like saying that if a thousand people take a leak in the Indian Ocean and you filter out a roughly equivilant amount of piss from the Atlantic that you're neutral.

You're right in the sense that you're not purely neutral, and you're right in the sense that it may never be truly neutral, but a swimming pool is disconnected from the ocean, whereas all the air is connected.

In the end it's not perfect, and it'd be better not to piss in the ocean at all, but if you have to metaphorically piss in the sea, it's better to filter it out somewhere as opposed to nowhere.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[FooAtWFU]

That's ridiculous. Unlike noxious-fume pollution, no one is in the least bit worried about the "local effects" of carbon dioxide. It already makes up billions of tons of atmosphere. It only does "damage" in the aggregate. The aggregate is all that matters.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[EbeneezerSquid]

Except for the fact that CO2 is a very poor Greenhouse gas (how's the weather by the way? Love that Global warming, don't you?). A far, far superior greenhouse gas is even more common, and when CO2 gets filtered out, it get's replaced with this gas.

Noone mentions it though. Why? Because the Gas which is four to eight times more efficient at reflecting sunlight out into space is O2.

Oxygen

Here's an idea - Let's ban the release of Oxygen into the atmosphere! Maybe get some of the green-peacers out of there boats and start them on burning down forests! /sarcasm

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[hey!]

In the real world, local effects are just as bad as global effects

Perhaps, but it depends on the pollutants. Lead emissions are a local problem (although there is archaeological evidence of airborne lead pollution in Northern Europe from Roman industry, hundreds of miles away). CO2 is a pollutant that has little local impact, even in comparison to the water emissions from combustion. Except in special circumstances, it has no local significance whatsoever. CO2 is a global pollutant. It makes perfect sense to sequester carbon in a Canadian oil field to offset emissions from a natural gas power plant in the US, because what we are concerned with are long term changes in average CO2 concentration across the globe. In that case, the swimming pool is the entire atmosphere, which would not be the case for things like CO or particulates.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[sexconker]

Get the fuck out of here with your logic and science. These have no place in a discussion about the environment!

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

From wikipedia:

Although contributing to many other physical and chemical reactions, the major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases. This is because homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 and monatomic molecules such as Ar have no net change in their dipole moment when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared light.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[zoomshorts]

Yes it is a joke. Hunter gatherers without the agriculture
part are carbon neutral. Once you grow controlled crops or
harvested things, you have upset the natural balance. PERIOD.

Carbon NEUTRAL? No Such thing!!! EVER.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole concept is junk science. It's basically saying that you can urinate in someone's swimming pool if you filter an equal amount of salt out of the ocean.

The real world doesn't work that way. In the real world, local effects are just as bad as global effects, and there's no guarantee that opposite local effects in two places will ever actually cancel each other out.

You do understand that the atmosphere is pretty good at mixing air, right? Bad analogies don't really help your argument. If you emit 1 kg of CO2 and then someone halfway around the world immediately removes 1 kg (after efficiency losses), the mixing in the atmosphere will cause the climate change potential to be zero.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Aglassis]

Greenhouse gases aren't a concern because they reflect sunlight, they are a concern because they reflect infrared. The Sun emits in the visible spectrum because its surface has a temperature of about 6000 K. The Earth's surface has a temperature of about 300 K, thus it emits infrared.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[NickW1234]

Fine, if you want to donate some money to an environmental research or alternative energy organization that's awesome, but it's no alternative for being more efficient to begin with.

Carbon credits, as they are now are just a marketing tool. It allows a company to be "green" in trade for cash, instead of efficiency.

It's like hybrid cars. Hybrid cars aren't GOOD for the environment, they're just slightly less bad. It's not okay to waste energy just because you're wasting less of it.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Hunter gatherers aren't carbon neutral, The human body produces C02. What is that off set by?

Ever is an awfully strong statement. There is a lot of uncertainty in both measuring carbon impact and any offsets. What you can say is that you are neutral within the margin of error of both measurements.

Do you see how less stupid that sounds?
And did you see how many less capitalized letters I used in words?
Feel free to imitate my style of communication, to improve other people's opinion of your thoughts. (although, you might want to skip this part where, I'm criticizing your style of communication, its not the most professional thing in the world to do in more formal situations. However, in this particular case your response was particularly irksome, and demonstrated a limited capacity for further discourse. I apologize if you think this bit to be a bit rude, but societal niceties should not impede the betterment of society. )

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[dwarfking]

When did CO2, which is an absolute necessity for the foliage that covers this planet, become a pollutant? Without CO2 we have no plants. Without plants we have no food and less oxygen. Do we consider Oxygen a pollutant as well?

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[jcr]

When did CO2, which is an absolute necessity for the foliage that covers this planet, become a pollutant?

When Al Gore found it convenient to do so.

-jcr

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[roc97007]

> You're right in the sense that you're not purely neutral, and you're right in the sense that it may never be truly neutral, but a swimming pool is disconnected from the ocean, whereas all the air is connected.

Well, not really. For instance, Ozone up really high, good. Ozone down really low, not good.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[roc97007]

And that's assuming your carbon offset money is actually going towards real carbon offsets.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[lm317t]

I wanted to mod your comment insightful but got distracted when I tried to scroll down with the arrow keys on the keyboard b/c I saw another interesting comment below yours. This of course scrolled the moderation menu down to flamebait and this became submitted when I clicked on the page. Stupid slashdot javascript. I'm a big boy and I can handle a submit button. So because the only way I could find to cancel it is to submit this boring comment. Oh well

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[smoker2]

Ok.
Over at NASAs Earth Observatory site, they have some interesting viewpoints and research together with images. There is a study (published 2006) that has been tracking the re-growth of forests after fires. Part of this work takes place in the far north of Canada, and Alaska.

Since the 1990s, scientists have known that increasing global temperatures have lengthened the growing season in the Arctic. With carbon dioxide, one of the key ingredients in photosynthesis, also on the rise, the forest should have been thriving. But it wasn't. The forest was getting browner, not greener.

They go on to discover that because of a warming climate, there are droughts occurring which deprive the forests of water, and so gradually they die. And although other trees can move in, they will suffer the same limitations. Overall, the effect is to reduce the amount of carbon held out of the atmosphere by trees, and also to extract less as time goes on leading to a higher build up of CO2, sooner.
Forest on the Threshold

And yes, pure Oxygen is poisonous.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Genda]

It's even worse than that. It becomes a PR tool in the hands of people who have tremendously more interest in looking good, than actually doing the right thing, and what you end up with is Chevron giving you 60 second bites of "What fine stewards of the environment they are", when in fact their litany of environmental abuse is nothing less than shocking.

Also don't let all the talk by Oil companies about alternative energy fool you, no oil or coal producer spends anywhere near 1% of their net profit researching alternative energy... it's more of that PR campaigning to win hearts and minds and of course sell more of their product. Which by the way it I have no problem with, it's business' job to sell their product. I just would appreciate them being straight about what they actually do, and stop blowing smoke up the world's collective shorts.

They (business') power our technology. That power comes at the cost of adding carbon to the environment. We are, everyone one of us who uses the technology responsible for that. It is up to us, each and every one of us, to keep our purveyors honest, push our governments hard to provide powerful incentives to migrate to a more sustainable technology/economy, and work hard to reduce our environmental footprint. Forget the carbon PR. Tell the truth about what you generate. Make real strides in reducing your impact. Take responsibility for your actions. Then, as informed consumers, we'll be able to handle the truth, vote with our dollars, and help make the world a better place. Until that time, all we have is obfuscation and FUD.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[evanbd]

Except that the ozone doesn't last long enough to move between the two zones, whereas CO2 does last long enough to largely equalize concentrations around the globe.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[khallow]

The dose makes the poison. In high enough concentrations oxygen is an extremely hazardous material. So yes, you can pollute with oxygen.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[evanbd]

Too much oxygen is bad for you. Too little is also bad. The fact that some CO2 is a necessary component of our atmosphere has very little bearing on whether some larger amount is better, worse, or about the same. There are a *wide* variety of substances that are important in small amounts and problematic in large amounts. It seems reasonable to consider them pollutants if they're man-made and at problematic levels.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Closer. Greenhouse gases *absorb* infrared.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[roc97007]

Really? Then what do the trees breathe?

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

What more its also the disbelief that trees sequester carbon, sure they do for a short time but its an issue of the carbon cycle.
Plants store carbon living creatures eat that carbon and release it into the atmosphere essentially. This is a closed cycle, we unfortunately started digging up old carbon (oil) out of the ground from when the atmosphere had much much more carbon and releasing it into our previously closed cycle. Changing a factor in that closed cycle isn't going to do much, those trees are eventually going to rot and decay or be eaten or burned. A small fraction may make it back into the ground for long term storage, but this is not a good way of doing it.
 

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[TapeCutter]

"Noone mentions it though. Why?"

Same reason that phrenology is not mentioned, ie: it's utter bullshit.

"Here's an idea - Let's ban the release of Oxygen into the atmosphere!"

Here's a different idea, get a clue.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Do we consider Oxygen a pollutant as well?

Try living in a 100% oxygen atmosphere at sea level pressure and let us know.

Anything can be a pollutant when the levels get too high. In some cases, the levels have to get very high to have a pollutant effect. In others ... they don't.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[dreamchaser]

No, what is ridiculous is that we are seriously considering further trashing the already near ruined world economy over the scare-junk-unproven-science that is anthropogenic global warming.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Do you know what a greenhouse is?

Do you know what greenhouse gases are, and why they are called that?

Did you read your own post?

Seriously. Go back and read what you wrote. Ponder the part about "reflecting sunlight out into space."

Ponder some more. Maybe, eventually, you will realize how incredibly ignorant you just made yourself out to be.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If he'd shown any logic or science in his post at all, maybe you'd have a point.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[evanbd]

You can't be serious. Yes, plants remove CO2 from the air (they also add it in lesser amounts). That doesn't mean they absorb all the CO2 that goes by them, or that all the atmosphere passes by plants (hint: the atmosphere is taller than trees). Yes, the presence of plants and finite diffusion rates means that local emissions create a local bubble. However, localized emissions will also impact CO2 levels around the globe. OTOH, localized ozone sources (or sinks) have *no* effect on the ozone layer -- ozone is too unstable, and it breaks down on its own (and reacts with other things in the atmosphere) before it gets very far. (Ozone depleting chemicals are different -- they are long-lived, and last long enough to drift into the upper atmosphere where they do their damage.)

Climate science is complicated. Gee, how surprising.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[TapeCutter]

Yes and the aggregate is ~10Gt/yr, whereas the aggregate capacity of natural sinks is ~3Gt/yr. For carbon cap and trade to work and get us back to 3Gt/yr we need to quantify the individual emissions and sinks, the capacity of vegatation to act a sink is not an easy thing to measure and varies wildly, same with the idea of dumping iron into the ocean. Neither should be used as a "carbon offset".

It's much, much, simpler to quantify (and control through taxes/regulation) the main sources, ie: fossil fuels and concrete. Replacing coal with a non-emmitting source of energy would get us most of the way to the target.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[sgt_doom]

Well said, Good Citizen dgatwood, well said.

Frankly, I don't think the coming Ice Age (methane + global warming) will give a frozen rat's ass in Hell about carbon offsets. Just me speaking.....

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[TapeCutter]

What is really ridiculous and somewhat ironic is your economic "alarmisim".

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[AmberBlackCat]

They certainly have no place on Slashdot...

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[joocemann]

Except for the fact that CO2 is a very poor Greenhouse gas (how's the weather by the way? Love that Global warming, don't you?). A far, far superior greenhouse gas is even more common, and when CO2 gets filtered out, it get's replaced with this gas.

Noone mentions it though. Why?
Because the Gas which is four to eight times more efficient at reflecting sunlight out into space is O2.

Oxygen

Here's an idea - Let's ban the release of Oxygen into the atmosphere! Maybe get some of the green-peacers out of there boats and start them on burning down forests! /sarcasm

You must not have an education that required the study of chemistry. Go get it, or at least make an effort by reading wikipedia. Once you know what you're talking about, please report back.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[TapeCutter]

"When did CO2, which is an absolute necessity for the foliage that covers this planet, become a pollutant?"

About 200yrs ago, when we started burning coal in sufficient quantities to significantly alter the composition of Earth's atmosphere.

Define: pollutant - "A resource out of place, that causes unwanted or undesirable changes in the environment."

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[TapeCutter]

Funny yes, insightful no.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[TapeCutter]

"Frankly, I don't think the coming Ice Age (methane + global warming) will give a frozen rat's ass in Hell about carbon offsets."

Methane + global warming = faster global warming. That is until the methane decomposes into CO2 and we revert back to regular global warming.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[jonbryce]

It's worse than that though.

I drive around in my Hummer, and offset it by paying someone not to chop down a tree that they probably had no intention of chopping down anyway.

Thanks to carbon offsetting, I keep getting boxloads of lightbulbs from my electric company.

Problem is that 1. they have a British style connection, whereas my light fittings use European style connections.
2. I switched to CFT bulbs about 12 years ago

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you take a trip to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Then you can talk about "local effects". We need to look at both the local as well as the global.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[cdrguru]

Turning off all the coal power plants might help. I'd say it is about the only thing that stands a chance of actually happening. Waiting for fusion power or someone to approve new transmission lines so wind or solar can work is likely to be eternal. We will run out of the will to do anything "technical" or "scientific" long before we have fusion power generation. And transmissions lines are considered to be as polluting as the power plants by some folks - some really vocal folks.

So we better just get used to a shrunken economy and turn off the power plants. Then we can argue about what the best bicycle-powered generator is for gaming applications.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[MacDork]

That's ridiculous. Unlike noxious-fume pollution, no one is in the least bit worried about the "local effects" of carbon dioxide. It already makes up billions of tons of atmosphere. It only does "damage" in the aggregate. The aggregate is all that matters.

Oh really?

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Get the fuck out of here with your logic and science. These have no place in a discussion about the environment!

Since when is a it logic and science to write a post including the classic bullshit "Sure is cold outside, right now in the middle of winter! Obviously anyone with COMMON SENSE* can see that global warming is a load of crap, and that local fluctuations are vastly more important than long-term trends, statistically!"

*(common appeal for someone trying to manipulate the uninformed)

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

> When did CO2, which is an absolute necessity for the foliage that covers this planet, become a pollutant?

When they found out that it contributes to global warming. That doesn't mean CO2 is a bad thing, just that we need to have it in moderation.

Which is why planting trees is one of the better ways to deal with this.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[TooMuchToDo]

You need water to survive. I don't need Al Gore to tell me that you'll drowned in too much water (excess water consumption will cause death).

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

INFIDEL !!

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[WindBourne]

You can not live without water. How about we put you at 100' down in a lake and release you without tanks? Or lets try have you eat a teaspoon of copper? Or perhaps a lb of sodium chloride? It is ALWAYS about propotions.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[dangitman]

The whole concept is junk science. It's basically saying that you can urinate in someone's swimming pool if you filter an equal amount of salt out of the ocean.

Since when was carbon trading a science? It's a purely economic measure. Climatology is a science, and global warming has been pretty thoroughly proven by scientists. But when it comes to carbon trading, that's the domain of economics and politics.

I'm an environmentalist who believes in cutting emissions and consumption, but I completely disagree that carbon trading is the way to achieve this. It's just a way to buy indulgences, to do nothing real to change other than throw money at the problem.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[wrook]

The whole concept is junk science.

Whether or not it's junk science, there is still a benefit to carbon credits. I've never liked the idea of "carbon neutrality" from the perspective of "Hey, now I'm not polluting", because obviously you *are* still polluting.

But, let's pretend (for the sake of argument) that we want to move from a non-renewable petro-chemical based energy system to a renewable and varied system. Man, that's next to impossible because the infrastructure cost is enormous. Who's going to pay for all that?

If you view carbon credits merely as a tax on petro chemical use, that is used to pay for renewable energy generation infrastructure, then it makes a lot more sense. However, things like tree planting (as much as I like trees) *can't* be included. And there has to be *much* better accounting of how much power is actually being generated by these renewable systems. And there has to be some guarantee that the systems actually get built (i.e., you can't issue a carbon credit for spending money to an organization that *might* build power generation capacity "if everything goes as planned").

Personally, I like the idea of carbon credits. However, their implementation (especially in North America) leave *much* to be desired...

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[drinkypoo]

Actually, this is completely untrue of CO2. Not only is it completely calculable how much CO2 is emitted (with cooperation from your upstream) but because the atmosphere is a mix of gases of different weights, it will mix itself pretty evenly over time. In other words, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere anywhere is good for everyone. No one is arguing that if all the world's CO2 production were in one location it would be a good thing, but that's not how it works, either.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[mysticgoat]

...all the air is connected

Well, no, actually, it isn't. That point of view is at least one level of abstraction beyond the phenomena of climate and weather that are the subject of the discussion.

The climate and weather in my part of the world are in large part generated by the interactions between cold, dry arctic air masses and warm, wet Pacific subtropical air masses. We get the cold blue northerns and we get the pineapple expresses, and sometimes we'll get both in the same week and believe me, its pretty damned obvious that these are different airs separated by boundary effects that can include a 50 F temperature differential.

Any carbon "balancing act" that results in pumping more CO2 into the mother arctic air mass with a corresponding reduction in CO2 in the mother Pacific subtropical air mass is likely to have a very pronounced effect on my climate, even if at the global level this can be considered carbon neutral. I am pretty sure that this is generally true for all other climates as well.

The level of interest is regional, that's where the climate affects us. "Global climate" is a convenient shorthand phrase for "the set of all regional climates" but it is an entirely theoretical construct that is less appropriate in discussions of climate change than a lot of spin doctors would like us to believe.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[dgatwood]

The thing is, at least in the U.S., if those companies spent the same money outfitting their roofs with solar panel arrays, they'd be reducing the baseline power during the day, allowing a significant reduction in coal plants. Here in the U.S., we get the bulk of our power (nearly half) from coal. We're beaten by India at about 65% and China at about 82%, admittedly, but getting China to switch from coal is going to require significant effort, and India is already pushing to move from coal to nuclear, making investments there somewhat shortsighted. And in terms of total use (rather than percentages), we're #2 behind only China.

This means that the best thing most U.S. businesses can do carbon-wise is to actually be electrically (and thus carbon) neutral, not buy their way into some perceived neutrality. That's what really gets on my nerves about the whole thing. If you cut the baseline power use somewhere else, you may be more likely to get the reduction from some more expensive (but cleaner) source of energy like oil or natural gas---or worse, cause some other solar power plant in that region to not get built.

For companies in other countries with lower percentages of coal usage, building locally is usually still better to a lesser degree, though, in that every penny of your costs for constructing alternative power systems goes into materials or labor costs, while carbon offsets would lose a cut off the top for the carbon offset vendor, plus a cut for the power company doing the project, plus the contractor, plus who knows how many other people and companies. And unlike building a solar farm on your own business's roof, a power company is unlikely to roll the cost savings from an externally-funded solar power project into more alternative energy production. Add to that the cost savings that a local deployment would provide for your business, and you'd have to be silly to buy carbon credits.

If you really want to do a good thing carbon-wise, build out a section of solar infrastructure on the roof of your business, then add the power savings each month into a fund to build out additional solar infrastructure. Repeat until you are energy neutral, then a few years later, build a solar power plant and sell bulk power back to the grid. Repeat until satisfied.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Wildclaw]

Hunter gatherers aren't carbon neutral, The human body produces C02. What is that off set by?

Collecting plants, making room for a new plant that can absorb CO2. And all its animal preys are also carbon neutral for that same reason so eating meat doesn't offset the carbon neutrality either.

Of course, if you get enough hunter gatherers that they destroy the environment around them, making the plant life unable to recooperate quickly enough, then it isn't carbon neutral any more.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[mattwarden]

I don't think you get it. It provides market forces to dissuade polluters from polluting, and if they so choose to still pollute, the monetary penalty will go toward projects which offsets their pollution, resulting in zero net increase in total societal pollution. Is it perfect? No. But saying that it "allows" polluters to pollute is what is naive (you didn't say this exactly, but the anti-COffset crowd does).

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

This is particularly tragic, because your original moderation of his comment was apt. Troll would also have worked.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[sgt_doom]

Afraid you're ignoring cascading variables, the speeded up global warming leads to a probable Ice Age.....keep warm, dood!

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[TapeCutter]

Afraid you have been seriously misinformed....dood.

Re:Carbon neutrality is a joke anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you aren't playing attention or your just playing stupid. Asshole or moron? I don't care, which it truly is, just stop trolling.

Modern day Indulgences

[gatkinso]

And nothing more.

Spend the money by planing some trees.

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[jmccay]

Well, planting the trees would work better. ;) Anyways, if you want to spend the money, spend it on planting tree, bushes and anything else that can consume greenhouse gases in cities and other Urban environments--like on top of buildings in New York City. Scientific American did an article (this) on it, or if you prefer this article from wikipedia. This would be more productive than falling for Al Gore's scams!

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[d34thm0nk3y]

Modern day Indulgences And nothing more. Spend the money by planing some trees.

Offsets are typically generated from emissions-reducing projects. The most common project type is renewable energy, such as wind farms, biomass energy, or hydroelectric dams. Other common project types include energy efficiency projects, the destruction of industrial pollutants or agricultural byproducts, destruction of landfill methane, and forestry projects.

Wikipedia: Carbon Offset

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[d3matt]

In Lewisville, TX we "destroy" landfill methane and generate electricity at the same time. Does that give us double carbon credits since we're using "biomass" energy?

If anyone wants to send me money, I will donate my son's dirty diapers to the landfill in their name!

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[Ortega-Starfire]

You mean planing some wood, right?

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[BCW2]

My bumper sticker:
Recycle air
Plant a tree!

The only thing that actually works is the simplest and cheapest.

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[LingNoi]

Why destroy landfill methane when you can use it to provide power and heating.

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. One way to create carbon offsets is to plant trees. Therefore the buyer of the resulting offsets literally is paying to have someone plant and maintain trees on their behalf, and probably to have the trees and corresponding offset claims audited too.

There's no question there are some issues clearly defining what activities can permissibly be claimed to generate true, valuable emissions reductions. But the concept is nowhere near as scientifically or logically flawed as spiritual indulgences.

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[alexibu]

I actually offset the emissions from my travel and car.
There is no way I would buy carbon offsets based on tree planting. For tree planting to work you have to guarantee that the forest remains there for ever. Which is rediculous

It is much easier for carbon offset companies to fund the difference between grid and renewable energy, thus keeping coal in the ground, thus offseting the carbon around the same time as you generated it, and solving the problem at hand by pushing renewables the learning curve towards grid parity.

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this carbon offsetting thing business so much I've just logged my almost 1000 acre parcel and I'll be selling carbon offsets to anyone by planting a tree in their name.

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[TooMuchToDo]

Or buy renewable energy credits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Certificates

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), also known as Green tags, Renewable Energy Credits, or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs), are tradable environmental commodities in the United States which represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource.

Much less ambiguous then a "carbon credit".

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[Anonymous Coward]

And nothing more.

Spend the money by planing some trees.

Actually, I recall a study (by Duke, I think) that measured the affects of higher carbon dioxide in trees, long-term. Over 70% of the carbon went into leaf foliage, which is recycled back into carbon dioxide in 3 years. So unless you've got a few million acres of trees ready to plant, I don't think planting trees will do much good.

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[NoisySplatter]

I'm going to sell carbon credits to finance my own carbon offsetting program, constructing an energy efficient solar powered house.

Think of all the carbon savings we will see when I'll be getting all my electricity from renewable sources. Perhaps I'll even be able to produce more energy than I need and sell it to my electric company, letting them cut back on carbon as well.

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[Anonymous Coward]

In Lewisville, TX we "destroy" landfill methane and generate electricity at the same time. Does that give us double carbon credits since we're using "biomass" energy?

No, because when you burn the methane, you produce carbon dioxide. Every molecule of methane burned results in one molecule of carbon dioxide. So, no you can't get double credits.

On the other hand, as a greenhouse gas, methane is about ten times worse than carbon dioxide, so releasing CO2 instead of methane is a very good thing. It is not as good however as not releasing the CO2 at all.

Re:Modern day Indulgences

[Atario]

Um...wouldn't planting trees be a (very small) way of...say it with me...offsetting your CO2 emissions?

Unless you believe that it isn't possible to spend money to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, then the concept of carbon offsets are completely valid. If you have a problem with the way a particular carbon-offset company accomplishes the task (or fails to), then point a finger and name a name. Otherwise, shut up about what you haven't thought out.

This "haw haw, carbon offsets are like Catholic indulgences, haw haw" crap people keep spewing when they want to shrug off their lack of doing anything to be a part of the solution is insulting to the intelligence. It says that the concept of removing CO2 from the atmosphere is the same as the concept of removing sin from one's soul. Last I checked, CO2 is pretty well-established as something that really exists and can really be removed from the atmosphere, using physical processes. Duh?

Offsets are marketing tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Bought by companies who want a good image. That's about all they are good for.

Re:Offsets are marketing tools

[alexibu]

Yeah, waste of money just like mufflers, sewerage connections, and garbage collections.
You should see my place, piles of garbage, and sewage everywhere - the price people pay to get a good image.

Re:Offsets are marketing tools

[BountyX]

id do it too if it meant a tax deduction...

Re:Offsets are marketing tools

[Atario]

[Citation needed]

Not a fix

[dogmatixpsych]

Who offsets the carbon of the carbon offsetting companies?

Buying "carbon credits" is ridiculous. It's a bit like a company using all the water in one river in the U.S. then paying other companies to drill wells for villages in Africa (i.e., being "water neutral"). It's great for the Africans but doesn't solve the problem of destroying a whole river ecosystem in the U.S.

I'm all for reducing noxious emissions and conserving energy but buying carbon credits does not solve the problem.

Re:A first post should be more like this

[EbeneezerSquid]

1) Off topic, completely.

2) Seek counseling.

More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[CannonballHead]

If it were just a volunteer program, that might be one thing. Giving money is another thing. I have heard that they like building rainforests with the money, too, which I have also heard are NOT the best thing for producing oxygen and eating CO2...

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[reginaldo]

Maybe they should stop building rainforests and start growing rainforests. That's probably the problem, cement trees are not very good at respiration.

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[CannonballHead]

Hehe...

Joking aside, I assume (this isn't even based on wikipedia, talk about [citation needed] that rainforests also have a lot of rotting material. I actually know THAT part for a fact, even that Earth series that recently came out (BBC, I think? Forgot hte name of it now, heh) had that in there. Rotting stuff produces lots of CO2.

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[Redlazer]

They aren't.

Plants consume CO2 during the day, and release CO2 at night, in a process called respiration.

They are truly carbon neutral : )

A better idea would be to find something that consumes massive amounts of methane, as not only is it significantly worse as far as "global warming" is concerned, its also not used by as many things around the world (and thus safer to play around with.)

-Fred

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange. The stuff rotting in me mostly seems to produce methane.

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[CannonballHead]

Plants are carbon neutral perhaps, but rotting plants aren't, hence the whole rain forest thing not being a good idea...

Don't matches consume massive amounts of methane? ;)

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[jcr]

Plants consume CO2 during the day, and release CO2 at night, in a process called respiration.

They are truly carbon neutral : )

Nope. They don't release as much as they take in. The carbon they absorb from the air gets combined with water and nitrogen and ends up as sugars and proteins.

-jcr

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[Toonol]

But growing plants are sinks; the carbon exuded by rotting matches the carbon they've incorporated into themselves over their lifetime. In the long run, everything is carbon neutral.

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[Chris Burke]

Uh not exactly, some of the CO2 is released, but much of it is converted into hydrocarbons via photosynthesis and used for various things like the plant's structure. There's a hell of a lot of carbon sequestered in the trunk of a large tree. When the plant life dies (or partly so, like when trees drop leaves in winter) that CO2 gets released, but should get sucked up in the next growth cycle, meaning that while it follows a cyclical pattern there's less carbon on average in the atmosphere and it isn't increasing.

Increasing the amount of carbon locked up in biomass is certainly a valid (if not perfect) way to reduce atmospheric CO2.

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[TheRaven64]

I don't know where you heard this. Plants respire all of the time, absorbing O2 and generating CO2 (excuse the lack of subscripts on Slashdot). If they didn't, they would die very quickly. When they are being hit by light, they also photosynthesise and turn CO2 into O2 and sugars, usually absorbing more CO2 than they generate with respiration. These sugars are turned into starch for storage and broken down to build more bits of plant. Plants remove carbon from the atmosphere and build it in to their bodies. A significant proportion of the mass of a growing plant is carbon it has absorbed from the atmosphere.

Plants are only carbon neutral if you count the time after they have died and been broken down by bacteria or burned.

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[pwizard2]

That reminds me about something I read a while back about biochar.

Amazonian soil is notoriously bad, but there are areas filled with what the locals call terra preta; soil with an unusually high carbon content. ( >= 20% ) This soil is jet black and is extremely fertile. (remaining so with repeated growing seasons) The areas where this soil is located is filled with pottery fragments, so the soil was obviously manmade either deliberately or as a byproduct of human habitation over a long period of time by pre-colombian cultures. Biochar is a modern attempt to recreate terra preta.

Biochar works by converting organic material into pure carbon, and then by storing that carbon in the soil. Carbon can persist in the soil harmlessly for centuries (if not millennia) so once carbon gets deposited, it would never be released again. Meanwhile, it would absorb nutrients (think activated carbon) and gradually release them to plants when aided by certain types of bacteria existing in symbiosis with plant life. If biochar could be mass-produced without releasing too much carbon dioxide, carbon could be stored in the soil indefinitely and we could possibly have a negative carbon footprint.

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure? How deep is the dirt under the trees? Has anyone actually bothered to measure?

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't release as much as they take in. The carbon they absorb from the air gets combined with water and nitrogen and ends up as sugars and proteins.

True, but I'd like to add a caveat - this is only true so long as the plants are still growing. A mature ecosystem, like an old-growth forest, is in equilibrium - the carbon absorbed by the growing plants is balanced by that released by the dead, decaying ones.

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[knewter]

Yeah, you're pretty hardcore wrong about this.

As it turns out, much of the 'plant' part is carbon. You know the way when you run electricity through holes in wood (say, use plywood to separate the leads for a Jacob's Ladder) it will build up carbon trails and short itself out? No? Try it.

Turns out that's carbon in them thar' trees. Most of the substance that is 'plant' is built from the stuff in the air, rather than the stuff in the ground.

You notice how planting stuff doesn't make all the soil disappear, right? :)

Re:More of a scam, not so much a fix.

[jcr]

A mature ecosystem, like an old-growth forest, is in equilibrium - the carbon absorbed by the growing plants is balanced by that released by the dead, decaying ones.

Not quite. You're leaving out the effect of accumulation of soil, which consists in large part of organic matter from those dead trees as well as other plants and the organisms that feed on them. Soil accumulates over time, and a lot of it is carbon compounds.

-jcr

http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingscam

[Anonymous Coward]

http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingscam

Cheat Neutral

[svnt]

My favorite commentary on carbon offsetting is Cheat Neutral

Brilliant way to make a statement. Yes, it is real. No, the creators don't keep the money. No, I'm not involved with the company/website.

Re:Cheat Neutral

[pavon]

Bwahaha - That is a brilliant idea! I think the site would have been funnier though if their descriptions were worded the way an actual company with more subtle references to carbon offsets. Ie just tell the joke, don't explain it :)

Re:Cheat Neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much more fun if you link to the start page, no the about page that explains the joke.

Re:Cheat Neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

he linked to the "about" page. everything else is pure satire.

FTA:

[CaptainPatent]

as some recipients of offsets say the results of their sustainable efforts would be achieved regardless of any one company's investment.

That's not true, those recipients wouldn't get filthy rich without company investments!

The Solution

[rlp]

The government just needs to enact two laws to solve global warming:

1) Ban all e-commerce
2) Mandate a one thousand year document retention period

All government and commercial transactions will be done on paper drastically increasing demand. Paper companies will chop down trees to make paper and then plant new ones that will pull carbon dioxide out of the air. The carbon in the form of paper will be sequestered by the document retention requirement. Problem solved.

Oh yeah, and to speed commerce we can build a network of pneumatic tubes.

Something similar for unfaithful boyfriends...

[adamofgreyskull]

CheatNeutral. Enjoy!

Right Wing Wackjob

[Anonymous Coward]

Go crawl back under your rock you rightwing wackjob.

Re:Right Wing Wackjob

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you right wing wack job, stop providing evidence. Environmentalism is about feel good, not science!

Re:Right Wing Wackjob

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah. I forgot the feel good left does like facts. It's about what you are appearing to do. I know Gore's trips in his private play are REALLY eco friendly.

Oh yes, the old Catholic model.

[gandhi_2]

Carbon Indulgences. I sense an Environmental Protestantism coming on.

Re:Oh yes, the old Catholic model.

[kpoole55]

The Environmental Protestantism movement is already underway but there's no money to be made in it so it gets nowhere. All the big money is already hooked into supporting the indulgences system.

Re:Oh yes, the old Catholic model.

[rdnetto]

Followed by an Environmental Reformation that actually makes the practice effective.

Subsidies

[dj245]

When you start handing out subsidies, people start chasing the subsidies rather than the goals that the subsidies are trying to jump-start.

See Ethanol, various agricultural subsidies, tax breaks for wealthy and profitable corporations, subsidies to erect cable lines and the monopolies that has created, etc.

I can think of very few subsidies that have worked out well. A much better idea is to incorporate the cost of "dirty" industry into the services and goods produced. Then consumers can compare on cost alone (which is what most people do anyway).

Re:Subsidies

[Wildclaw]

When you start handing out subsidies, people start chasing the subsidies rather than the goals that the subsidies are trying to jump-start.

So true. Subsidies is the exact opposite of what you should do. There is only one decently efficent way of dealing with externalties, and that is to tax the hell out of it.

Of course, politicians will never do something like that. Instead of taxing the release of CO2 into the atmosphere they will just tax using energy which punishes all types of energy uses independent of how it is produced. Then they will create random subsidies on various non-externalty based energy production methods on a pseudo random basis (using the lobbying dice). This completly destroys the free market and makes less efficent but lobbied ways of producing energy cheaper (as in subsidised) while newer efficent methods remains expensive.

Re:Subsidies

[FiberOPtic]

"When you start handing out subsidies, people start chasing the subsidies "

Like the oil companies?

The next step is obvious

[daemonenwind]

Christians came to these realizations roughly 500 years ago....how long before the new Enviroligion realizes the following?

(Highlights follow, with apologies to Dr. Martin Luther and all the other good Lutherans/Protestants on /.)

27
There is no green authority for preaching that the pollution flies out of the biosphere immediately once the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.

28
It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the Treehuggers offer intercession, all depends in the will of Gore.

29
Who knows whether all souls who live in pollution wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of a befouled environment for the benefit of the Treehuggers).

32
All those who believe themselves certain of their own harmony with nature by means of letters of carbon credit, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.

41
Carbon Credits should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of loving trees.

49
Hippie Treehuggers should be taught that the Gore's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of Pollution through them.

54
The word of Gore suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to Carbon Credits than to that word.

67
The Carbon Credits, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favours, are seen to be, in fact, a favourite means for money-getting.

82
They ask, e.g.: Why does not the Gore liberate everyone from pollution for the sake of loving trees (a most Green thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their environment? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable polluters for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build Gore Manor, a very minor purpose.

Re:The next step is obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with making fun of treehugging hippies for supporting carbon offset indulgences is that no treehugging hippies think that carbon offset is a good idea. treehugging hippies think that riding a bike instead of driving, fixing things and making them yourself, and growing your own food are the best ways to reduce global carbon levels. then they do those things. then they get made fun of for being hippies.

Re:The next step is obvious

[LingNoi]

Problem is it's ok to do that in the west however it's not so easy to grow your own food when you don't have a garden, tools or seeds to do it.

Again with the bike, great in theory unless you can't afford a bike and have to take a bus into a city from the slum you live in.

These ideas are always presented by western idealists as simple solutions without much thought taken into the actual practicalities.

Offsets, offsets, little itty bitty offsets, ...

[itsybitsy]

New from the makers of Carbon Offsets, Litter Offsets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il3o4rmcLBc

At the end of the vid are the best kind of offsets that the government uses all the time against other people around the world.

Of course the Christians have had the best offsets of them all: the confession booth.

Yes, the little tune in the subject line was inspired by Data of ST:TNG.

Not that easy

[Moraelin]

Sorry to piss on someone's cult of the hunter-gatherer utopia parrade, but it didn't work that way.

Pre-historic hunter-gatherers caused the extinction of thousands of species and, for example, all the mega-fauna in the Americas. There are whole species, e.g., the mammoth, for which you can trace its shrinking habitat historically and it looks damn suspiciously like the opposite of the pattern of human spread. Yes, there were environment factors too, which probably were already making it harder for them to thrive, but nevertheless, wherever the humans went, the mammoths soon went extinct.

That's just one species out of _thousands_.

Hunter-gatherers in North America used "buffalo jumps" to herd whole herds of buffalo off cliffs and then eat the resulting mess of meat. They only got all in touch with nature when that source of food started to not be enough.

(And even then, an animist's idea of harmony with nature is giving back to the _spirits_, not to nature itself. If you hunt bears, you give offerings and prayers to the great bear spirits, whose job is to make sure you get plenty of bears to hunt. It was a pretty damn human-centric view of the world. And if they get to be scarce, then you just need to pray more and appease the spirits better, not, say, give the bears a fucking chance to repopulate.)

Humans are a pretty scary predator. Most other predator have 1-2 species of prey they depend on, creating equilibrium cycles. When the rabbits depopulate, some of the foxes starve too and don't breed as much either, giving the rabbits a chance to rebound. And viceversa. Humans have no such balancing factors. If the population of dodos drops, the humans still survive on fruits and other animals, and keep on hunting the dodos into extinction. And sometimes keep on hunting them just for fun, trophies, proof of manhood, or whatever. The hunter-gatherers did exactly the same too. Why do you think they had those feather headdresses, or wolf skins, or whatnot? To show how great hunters they are, even if they didn't actually need to eat that animal.

So measuring the ecological impact just in carbon is misleading at best, and freaking stupid at worst. Hunter-gatherers caused mass extinctions.

Re:Not that easy

[jcr]

Pre-historic hunter-gatherers caused the extinction of thousands of species and, for example, all the mega-fauna in the Americas.

They also routinely set fires in forests and grasslands. As it turns out, that's not a bad idea if you want healthy forests or prairies.

-jcr

Re:Not that easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Pre-historic hunter-gatherers caused the extinction of thousands of species and, for example, all the mega-fauna in the Americas....Hunter-gatherers in North America used "buffalo jumps" to herd whole herds of buffalo off cliffs...

Maybe the "buffalo" went extinct but bison were doing extremely well living under the pressure of hunter-gatherers. As was most of the rest of North American wildlife (and African as another example). It was only when the bison were deliberately exterminated in large numbers by the descendants of Europeans that they came close to extinction.
That hunter-gatherers caused the extinction of North American mega-fauna is only a theory, one that always had a lot of holes and is facing increasing skepticism.
Most of the North American mega-fauna that went extinct disappeared at the same time the Clovis culture disappeared and new theories are putting forth evidence that perhaps they both fell to the same influence. They both disappeared at the start of a period of rapid climate change (the "Younger Dryas") which may or may not have been brought about by the impact of a comet on the ice sheet near Hudson Bay.
Not that I disagree that measuring ecological impact in only carbon is wrong. The real source of most, if not all, problems on the planet today is an exponentially increasing human population and the overall increased strain on global resources that occurs because of this.

Re:Not that easy

[Repossessed]

So humans killed off every single dire wolf, but left the smaller but otherwise near identical North American wolf packs, and every other major predator in the area, alone?

That is bullshit, pure utter bullshit. Mastodons and mammoths died out at the same time despite being on other sides of the planet from each other. The mega fauna also went extinct at the exact same time, in places where humans had been around for 50,000 years (and had actually caused some extinctions when they showed up). This was a global event, carbon dioxide levels dropped, it got cold as hell, plants died, and anything that was too big starved.

Re:Not that easy

[tompaulco]

Also, I might add, Buffalo are not extinct. They are plentiful enough that you can eat Buffalo meat for only a slightly higher cost than cow meat.

Re:Not that easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Thousands of species? LuLz. Give me evidence for that you amateur. All the mega fauna in America? Moose, Elk, Buffalo, black/brown/grizzly/polar bears, American alligators, the whales, maybe puma are all on the list of animals I full grown man wouldn't get in a cage with.

  You're right though. Measuring eco impact by carbon is stoopid. What is clear is that the rate of species extinction is highest in human history. Just consider all the islands we've destroyed with rats, goats, and pigs (literally thousands of islands with native unique species). One example of many.

Re:Not that easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Whew, I'm glad you cleared that up once and for all.

Get fat and sequester carbon...

[aurispector]

Now THAT is how the real world works. Congratulations on making a sound investment. Carbon trading is so obviously a useless bullshit scam. The real damage done is in the fact that people think it actually works and hence ignore other actually beneficial measures.

I'd love to do a parody website about the environmental benefits of obesity. After all, human fat is a fairly dense hydrocarbon. The fatter you become, the more carbon is sequestered. Imagine the environmental benefits if everyone in the US gained 30 lbs! A billion pounds of carbon sequestered! Woo-hoo!

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[Esvandiary]

Imagine the environmental benefits if everyone in the US gained 30 lbs! A billion pounds of carbon sequestered! Woo-hoo!

... and just maybe every woman on Earth might no longer be pressured into trying to be so thin that they'll probably end up with anorexia nervosa.

Well, we can hope, eh? :)

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbon trading is so obviously a useless bullshit scam.

EXACTLY! It's just another way parasitic third party speculators have managed to manipulate something that should be a big positive for many and turn it into something that is only a big positive for themselves. Perhaps there should be "progressive" trading, where the biggest tax break is given to those that cut their own impact and a significantly smaller cut to those who rely on "buying" someone else's efforts.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Note that in the "real world" of which you speak, the reason it was economical for GPP to put up solar panels was because of the tax writeoff -- i.e., governments setting environmental policy. Imagine that.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can keep the fatties, I like that my woman doesn't look like a ten-wheeler.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[ectotherm]

Kudos- well said! Carbon trading is nothing more that this year's hula hoop. By the way, I can get you a great deal on algae farm futures... ;)

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to do a parody website about the environmental benefits of obesity.

Obesity has a NEGATIVE effect on the environment. Obese people eat more. Food is everything but carbon-neutral. Transportation, fertilizers, pesticides, cooling, etc.

Second, obese people are poor carbon sinks, they don't last more than 70-80 years. Obese people even less. After which you burn them, or put them in the ground. And where does all the carbon go?

Third, fatty tissue is an excellent storage cell for toxins and heavy metals. Not good for the environment.

Fourth, obese people produce more Methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Fifth, obese people costs more energy to move. And they cost way more energy to fly around. A parody website on the link between airline ticket prices and the number of obese people would be more interesting.

Sixth, Obese people have more health problems. They need to be transported to the hospital more often, they need more care and need more medicine. All negatively effect the environment.

...

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[jlarocco]

First, that was one item in an entire list of reasons. In other words, the government is wasting time and money "promoting" something that's already worth doing.

Second, just because you happen to agree with promoting environmentalism, doesn't mean everybody agrees. Why should you get to force your opinion on everybody?

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[Tanktalus]

I'd love to do a parody website about the environmental benefits of obesity.

Obesity has a NEGATIVE effect on the environment. Obese people eat more. Food is everything but carbon-neutral. Transportation, fertilizers, pesticides, cooling, etc.

And that's why GPP said parody. Part of that parody, it seems, is where he focuses on one tiny, insignificant aspect of the study and ignores everything that doesn't fit his (satirical) world view. The point of the website, then, would be to encourage people to think holistically, and not get suckered into fad-of-the-day thinking on carbon credits or anything else. By reading/watching the news with skepticism, perhaps we can have a real, intellectual conversation about the real state of the world, and what can and should be done about it. You know, planning for an honest future. Together. Instead of having marketing drones do the thinking for us.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[TooMuchToDo]

Think about carbon offsets this way. They let people invest in renewable energy projects (depending on the carbon credit) that otherwise not be able to get funding. Just because wind can't compete with coal at the current per KwH cost doesn't mean wind farms shouldn't be built.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[Arker]

It's actually more complicated than that, the state interferes in the economy in so many different ways simultaneously it can be difficult or impossible to determine in a specific case whether, on the whole, it's actually encouraging or discouraging a certain activity.

For instance, with solar hot water, the state here is offering a direct subsidy. It's also offering a very slightly less direct subsidy through a carbon credit scheme. Both of these effectively lower the price of the units, making the economic break-even point come sooner.

At the same time, however, it is holding the price of off-peak mains electricity artificially low, which amounts to subsidising electric water heaters as well, which has exactly the opposite effect.

It's also doing many other things that affect the equation, and it would be a sisyphian task to try and untangle all the different distortions which are going on at the same time.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[RCourtney]

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but you're leaving out an important part of the equation... adding 30 lbs to each person also increases the amount of energy required for various things. How much extra fuel will it take to fly a plane full of people all 30lbs heavier? How much energy will an elevator use to lift X amount of people all of which are 30 lbs heavier? You think that 30 lbs of fat which started out as food magically got to their table for them to eat without using any extra energy? And we won't even get into the overall energy costs associated with reduced health of every person who is now 30lbs heavier. I'm not saying your point about carbon trading is right or wrong, just that I wish people actually considered all sides of equations, rather than just the one side that fits their argument (or parody, in this case).

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[aurispector]

Yes, exactly. They took advantage of a tax write-off to make a capital investment that's paying off. It has NOTHING to do with the reasoning behind the policy, however flawed that reasoning might be. Do you want a cookie?

In all probability, the real carbon cost of manufacturing, transporting and installing those panels may have been easily outpaced by far simpler methods like increased insulation or turning down the thermostat a degree.

Oatmeal or chocolate chip?

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[Muad'Dave]

After all, human fat is a fairly dense hydrocarbon.

I got the creeps when I ran across the section of the CRC regarding the composition of various fats. One was labeled 'Depot Fat', and gave the fractions of its various constituents. Depot Fat is people!!! Ewwww!

Being what could be generously called 'Portly', I've always wondered how long I'd burn if you stuck a wick in my tummy and lit it.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Arg. Wrong mod. Posting to undo.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[sorak]

Not to mention that parent is assuming that clean air has no value. Which is like saying "eat that doughnut in the garbage. It's cheaper! I'm sure that bakeries make these new garbage-free doughnuts, and those dumbasses think they're better, but until it becomes cheaper than a garbage can doughnut, it isn't feasible".

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[sesshomaru]

Mmmmmmm..... garbage donut.... glllll.....

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[mattwarden]

Well, damn. I'm glad the government knows what the best green tech is and that next week there won't be a breakthrough that makes this guy's investment obsolete. Can you think of any other green technologies the government subsidized in the way of tax credits but we know now are pieces of shit?

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[aurispector]

I got the creeps when I ran across the section of the CRC regarding the composition of various fats. One was labeled 'Depot Fat', and gave the fractions of its various constituents. Depot Fat is people!!! Ewwww!

cue clip of charlton heston running and screaming...

Being what could be generously called 'Portly', I've always wondered how long I'd burn if you stuck a wick in my tummy and lit it.

Hell, you probably sequester a day's carbon emissions for a small town! (j/k!)

I read somewhere that cases of supposed human spontaneous combustion were essentially low temperature fires fed by the cadaver's fat. The bones ash this way, leaving very little but a greasy burnt patch and a lot of questions. They tested it with sheep or something and they smoldered for a couple of days.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[ral8158]

Because, apparently if such programs exist, a majority of voters support officials who support those programs.
Why do you get to force YOUR opinion on everybody?

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[jlarocco]

I'm not trying to force my opinion on anybody. As far as I'm concerned everybody should be able to do anything they want, as long as they leave me alone. It's this thing called "freedom", maybe you've heard of it?

And if the majority of voters supporting something makes it right, why is everybody so angry about the detainees at Guantanimo? Obviously the majority of people want them detained, otherwise they wouldn't have elected Bush again. Same with wiretapping. Same with copyright law - the majority of people obviously want it, so why does everybody here complain so much? The majority happily supported slavery for hundreds of years, does that make it okay? I don't think it does.

"It's okay because the government is doing it" is just about the silliest argument possible because it's so obviously not true.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[ral8158]

"It's ok because the government is doing it" is not my argument. My argument is that the majority of people support policies that protect the earth from people like you who would allow others to forget about personal responsibility and destroy the environment. You were talking about opinions and pushing them on others--and if you're comparing policies on environmental safety to slavery, you're missing the point--but I simply pointed out that YOU were the one pushing your irresponsible opinion on the majority of people.

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[jlarocco]

"It's ok because the government is doing it" is not my argument. My argument is that the majority of people support policies that protect the earth from people like you who would allow others to forget about personal responsibility and destroy the environment. You were talking about opinions and pushing them on others--and if you're comparing policies on environmental safety to slavery, you're missing the point--but I simply pointed out that YOU were the one pushing your irresponsible opinion on the majority of people.

So basically you're saying freedom is unimportant?

Re:Get fat and sequester carbon...

[ral8158]

You don't have the freedom to punch me, steal my possessions, or rape my spouse. Why do you get the freedom to put your shit in my air?

Some Credits are More Equal than Others

[KnightNavro]

Some credits are better than others. There are several verification programs in existence. In the USA, I am most familiar with the Chicago Climate Exchange and the California Climate Action Reserve (CCAR). A lot of projects would have occurred anyway due to profitability or regulations, and GHG credits from these projects are junk. Preserving a piece of forest in a desolate valley nobody could profitably harvest or installing a landfill gas flare where carbon has become too expensive should be considered "business as usual," but unfortunately some accreditation agencies and verifiers don't consider "business as usual" and say there is a reduction anyway. These credits are a scam perpetrated by the seller, the verifier, the accreditor, and sometimes the buyer.

There are some projects that generate real reductions. For example, capture or methane from manure lagoons or landfills where it is not required by regulation and is not less expensive than carbon treatment or the planting and preservation of trees in an area that would otherwise be harvested. These credits are real reductions.

The problem is the layman has no idea where their credits are coming from. I'm in the industry, and I can't always tell you the value of a credit.

Re:Some Credits are More Equal than Others

[roc97007]

> The problem is the layman has no idea where their credits are coming from.

Exactly. How possibly could they? We're talking people with real lives, not (and I sincerely mean this in the most positive sense) eco-geeks. When you ask even intelligent, well-educated people to make decisions out of their area of expertise, you often get pandemonium. And that's what we're getting here.

Re:Some Credits are More Equal than Others

[HTH NE1]

The problem is the layman has no idea where their credits are coming from. I'm in the industry, and I can't always tell you the value of a credit.

They could follow the Bethselamin example: any net imbalance between the carbon your company releases vs. what it sequesters is removed from the executives and shareholders (and, in cases of extreme imbalance, their dependents) on a drawn-and-quarterly basis.

The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion

[geoffrobinson]

Global Warming has all the elements of caricatures of religion.

Sin? Carbon.

Original Sin? Capitalism/Industry.

Which leads us to carbon offset. Yes, just like Roman Catholic indulgences. Except they produced something useful. The Sistine Chapel.

Re:The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion

[kaos07]

Right, because "sin" is "all the elements of religion". On that logic you could pretty much call scientists proclaiming the dangers of lung cancer as a religious cult.

Equating decades of scientific research to a story tale about a Jewish carpenter and his drinking buddies is ridiculous.

Re:The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion

[geoffrobinson]

No, Christianity has eyewitness testimony which trumps computer models which may or may not be true.

What I'm alluding to is that man is inherently religious and religious impulses will find their home in non-religious realms if people aren't that religious. You just can't change human nature.

That doesn't mean that the underlying belief is true or false. But those impulses remain.

Re:The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Christianity has eyewitness testimony

Oh, really? Do tell.

Re:The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion

[kaos07]

It's depressing you don't realise how rubbish that all is.

Re:The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion

[Candid88]

Except that by using such logic you could equally call any scientific theory a religion. Especially ones not simply & immediately demonstrable.

The only difference between scientific theory and religious belief (or belief in general) is that scientific theory is based solely on observed evidence and logical derivation. As soon as you claim a scientific theory isn't based solely on said "observed evidence and logical derivation" then you are thereby claiming it is a belief rather than a theory.

Assigning "sins" or any other facet of religion (or any other belief system for that matter) is then just a simple creative exercise. One could equally claim evolution is a religion and Darwin it's Messiah for example, or Stephen Hawkings the Pope of the Black Hole Theory religion...

Re:The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true. I've seen Christianity with my own eyes; people like you who say Christians don't exist just have your head in the sand.

Re:The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion

[geoffrobinson]

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621

For starters.

Re:The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a solipsist, you insensitive clod!

Re:The Indulgence of Global Warming Religion

[Atario]

I know, right? Like this:

Sin? Floodwater.

Original Sin? Storms.

Which leads us to the total scam known as the "levy".

Yeah, right! How dumb do these Hydrological Engineering cultists think we are?

Overthinking anything

[dmomo]

Is what will cause the over intelligent person to fail. No matter how much time you spend analyzing some decision, there will be even more to consider. You will never know for sure what the best option is.

It comes down to "stupid" and seemingly "irrational" reasons that make us finally decide.

This:

These Corn Pops are cheaper... but I get more Oz. per Dollar if I buy the more expensive ones... but I may not finish the bigger box... but if I get the small box, I might have a surplus of milk. Oh.. I could buy the smaller milk. Oh wow. The value of the quart-sized milk drops dramatically from that of the Gallon size. Ok. I will rule out milk as a deciding factor...

Or this:
These corn pops look good. Big box or small? I'm not that hungry now, which has nothing to do with anything... but small box it is.

I guess it's a matter of choosing your battles. In general, I believe that if we mean well and make honest decisions, on average we will do better. Not always, but it will tend towards better. Do try.. but do not kill yourself. The returns on worrying will likely diminish as you sit there.

If everyone TRIED to be conscious of energy waste, I feel pretty confident that the net payoff would be worth it. Again, only go as far as is reasonable. Yes. That's a subjective thing. That's one thing "Humans" are skilled at. Subjectivity. It's an important part of what makes us intelligence. Call it your heart or your gut. It's smarter than the credit we give it.

Re:Overthinking anything

[LingNoi]

Wasting energy isn't the problem. It's energy production that is. More research needs to be pumped into stuff like Bussard Fusion reactors and then once finished the whole debate is over.

Re:Overthinking anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to solve linear programming problems in your head corrects this minor inconvenience.

Re:Overthinking anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, wasting anything is always a problem.

I am certain that one day we'll have better and more plentiful energy sources then today, but the imminent period of prudence ahead of our time is something which the generations that will follow it will be grateful for, even though they may enjoy energy riches.

Like the cycles of production economy, cycles of resources' economy are necessary tool of optimization and perfection.

Besides, we are already past the several points of no safe technological fallback and we need to understand and learn how to do stepdowns and rebounds. History teaches us that more then once great civilizations of the past had undergone complete and utter destruction because they couldn't change their ways or restart their life cycles after a major natural or man-made disturbance. Others, like Polynesian culture, adapted gradually, but they themselves were agents of change, which is a very important point we could study and learn from. We should know better and plan for any eventuality. If our energy and resources footprint is light, we could take larger hits with less damage, or make inroads to perhaps a better future for our successors.

We seem to have a bit of a problem

[iminplaya]

when it comes to this carbon thing

MGW: a shitty lie and ppl need to think about it

[gd23ka]

Hey I just took a shit. I parted with about what I would say looks like 200 grams of digested food and here's your fun science fact for the
day: shit also contains a _lot_ of dead intestinal cells - no kidding.

I bring this up because again we're knee deep into the Man-made Global Warming / Carbon Tax LIE-complex. Just think about it. Earth has
been around far far far longer than we've been poking a thermometer into its rear. From what we do know, the 1700s saw temperature
significantly higher as far up as the WINEYARDS(!) of England(!) (yep, England was known for its fine wine back then). The average temperature
was far higher than it is today and by that I mean the warm spell we had the years before. Now it's so cold they're changing their tune
either to "Global Cooling" (man-made too of course) or they're now resorting to the more generic term "Climate Change". I'm sick of this crap
and so should you be.

There's a whole world of deceit and outright lies out there spread mostly by the so-called "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" ("IPCC").
Isn't it interesting that scientists sue -- and have to sue -- to get their names taken off the "IPCC" reports and studies because same scientists
either actually entirely disagree with the "findings" in those reports or just had their name listed without prior permission or any affiliation or
relation with the "IPCC".

So back to the turd I flushed. 200g of organic matter, I'm guessing 74% H, 5% oxygen, nitrogen, 1% calcium, sulphur, phosphorus and various
other minerals and of course 20% carbon. Why should I pay say an extra dollar for flushing my toiled to "offset" the fictitious "cost" of me being
alive with a metabolism .. when it's ALL A SHITTY LIE?!?!

Take a look at this:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/swindle.htm

A Review Of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' By S. Fred Singer, (Atmospheric Physicist) March 19, 2007

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth has met its match: a devastating documentary recently shown on British television, which has now been viewed by millions of people on the Internet. Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the other hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from a single politician.

The scientific arguments presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle can be stated quite briefly:

1. There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded--not resulted from--increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapour is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor--and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940-75), nor for the observed patterns of warming--what we call the "fingerprints." For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite. ...

The inexact science of everything

[philspear]

(Kind of an off-topic rant, mostly because I'm seeing a lot of responses saying "See?!? Global warming is clearly crap because it has holes, now leave my diesel-powered hummer alone")

When did people start thinking science was easy and could ever provide a simple answer to anything? At best you get vague general theories, and usually know at least a few big exceptions prior to the theory being written down. And that's when the theory applies to something that is entirely academic. When it has serious economic implications, how clear a picture do you think is going to develop?

Maybe we do need to start adding "just a theory" to evolution taught in high school, and add it to everything else taught in science as well.

It's important to point out the holes in any theory, to critique buisness practices and government regulations, and avoid the harms that global warming could bring about, but resist the temptation to think in terms of black and white on such complex issues.

Re:The inexact science of everything

[Hawthorne01]

Well, I think anthrocentric global warming is a load of hooey, and I drive a Civic Hybrid.

Wrap your brain around that for a while, then get back to me...

Re:The inexact science of everything

[OneSmartFellow]

I believe that you meant anthropocentric. I'm pretty sure the root is anthrop, not anthro.

Carbon Neutrality IS risky business!

[Anonymous Coward]

IT'S A SCAM!

Give the congress direct control over each and every business, and they'll take it. That's why it's there. But they're so smart, aye?

You hated the BMV?
You hated the $600 toilet seat?
You hate $8 aspirins in the hospital?
You hate $130,000 school debt for the basics?

The same people who brought that, bring this.

Sign up for GlobalWarming(TM) and you have a lot of Kool-Aid to drink.

Consensus isn't science.

We don't all *agree* on a speed of light, we've proved it.
We don't all *agree* on a speed of sound, we've proved it.
Why *agree* that it's happening, when it's not?

"Send me money: I'll stop the sky from falling!"

Would you buy it if they used those words?

Re:A first post should be more like this

[kiwijapan]

To Admins: Will somebody please block the IPs of the adolescent, racist, small-minded morons who insist on posting this type of message. I know that I could raise the level of posts to read in order to block these out myself, but I shouldn't have to. I don't mind the majority of trolls or flamebait, but this is getting ridiculous. And yes, I really that the purpose of these posts is to incite this type of response, but their are too many intolerant, ignorant people in the world now without pathetic idiots like this influencing others.

Carbon-Credits are not all a scam

[ZiggyM]

Ok, most comments are heavily critizising carbon credits, so, risking being bashed, I will write a little about the goods of carbon credits, from a perspective of a peruvian citizen. First, of course its not the ideal solution. Many in slashdot want either ideal or nothing. The best solution is for factories to stop polluting. However, in the real world, this is not currently achievable, as most of us continue to buy products that we ask those factories to make for us. Factories are just the intermediaries, we are the ones that demand more stuff. if you really want *factories* to stop polluting, *stop buying* their stuff, reduce, reuse, and recycle, and have less kids. That said, the Kyoto protocol is at least a starting point, which formalized the mechanism for carbon credits. its a way for factories to continue polluting, BUT with two new advantages: 1) Some countries now put a price on that pollution, and factories now must pay for that, or must reduce their pollution. The best incentive is always money. In Europe this does work. And 2) not only do they have to pay, but that money goes towards projects that are good for the environment. As an example, here in Peru where I live, its actually a good business to plant and maintain a forest, because we get $ from carbon credits. This would have been impossible before Kyoto, and I can tell you first-hand that nobody gives a crap here about forests unless they receive some money in exchange, and the government does nothing to stop deforestation, so its left to private business to do something. In fact our rainforest is being heavily devastated mostly by coca plantations that destroy it. At least the carbon credits offset that a little bit. Hopefully as the cost of a carbon credit goes up, so will the business of making and maintaining forests. I also have a lot of criticism for carbon credits, but nobody was saying what its good for, so I had to.

Re:A first post should be more like this

[pjbgravely]

You answered your own question.

Don't feed the trolls and they will get bored and move on. Your post fed them for another 2 weeks.

Wall Street Fox Journal Lies

[Doc Ruby]

Why would we read the Wall Street Journal for insight into governing carbon emissions in a market? The WSJ has lied for years about carbon emissions and climate change. Even before it was bought last year by Rupert Murdoch to join the NY Post and Fox News (and many other lying tabloids) in his fascist communications empipre, the WSJ was lying about climate change and markets. Even beyond the carbon pollution and climate change, the WSJ spent the last decade and more lying to us about how unregulated markets would make us all rich, but they've robbed us all blind.

We have to debate a lot to get a carbon emissions market right. Doing it in the pages of the Wall Street Fox Journal is a good way to do it totally wrong. And if you think the financial crash the WSJ helped cook up is bad, wait until you see what the WSJ would do for the air we breathe and the rest of the environment we need to live.

Old news

[pjbgravely]

I always wondered what the motives for claiming that CO2 causes global warming. I figured it must be power or money.

After reading this article I finally figured out it was power.

Re:Old news

[pjbgravely]

Sorry brain dead, it should read like this:

I finally figured out it was money.

Re:Old news

[Atario]

I always wondered what the motives for claiming that CO2 causes global warming.

I don't suppose it could be fundamental scientific research?

Naw, that could never be. It's about something that causes you intellectual discomfort, and must therefore be some sort of vast nefarious conspiracy.

PT Barnum would be proud

[dreamchaser]

Anyone who thinks that buying 'Carbon Credits' is anything other than a scam is a sucker...and as the man said one is born every minute.

Re:A first post should be more like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I am usually against any form of censorship, but these comments are offensive and add absolutely nothing to the conversation. They need to go.

Maybe a new moderation option should be added: "-1 Troll and Vote to Delete". If enough (defining "enough" is an exercise left for the reader) mods vote to delete a comment, it is deleted.

Oh, it's worse than you say

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbon offsets are silly.

But the whole concept of Carbon Footprint is piling junk science on top of middle-class nonsense. It's like the worst of every possible worlds with Al Gore giving his scientific opinion on how good you should feel about it.

Dollars are a good proxy.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is. You take the total amount of dollars that you spent on the panels and assume that that paid entirely for the the worst carbon-emitting energy source. Because it can't have taken any more energy than that to produce or they'd have had to charge you more, and indeed, it can't have even taken that much, or they wouldn't have been able to afford employees or materials.

Note that if there are subsidies, you have to add them to the "amount paid." If there are hidden subsidies, you have to pray that they're not significant.

On the other side of it, you can use the average of the production facilities that provide you power, if you know it.

But, an interesting simplification: if you assume the worst carbon emitters on both sides of the equation, then it just comes down to dollars. If it pays for itself, then it's carbon neutral or better.

CO2 is the standard unit not the only pollutant

[Anonymous Coward]

It is actually CO2 equivalents, commonly abbreviated as CO2-e - meaning that other pollutants are converted to that standard unit based on how much more potent they are to CO2, Methane for example is considered 24 times more potent so one tonne of methane is equivalent to 24 tonnes of CO2 (in terms of its greenhouse gas). Per IPCC.

Planting trees?

[Valdrax]

Spend the money by planing some trees.

You see, this is part of the scam of carbon offsets. Planting trees is the biggest traditional offset.

However, what do you do with the trapped carbon after you've planted trees? If they burn (either as trees or as wood), then you've done nothing. If they die and rot, then you've done next to nothing. Planting trees is just sweeping the dust under the rug so that no one will notice. It's still "in the system" as it were.

Unless we take those trees and bury them right back in the ground where we got the coal and oil, it's just a delaying action.

What Was It For?

[DynaSoar]

The idea was never meant to be accurate, science, or anything similar. It was meant to be a PR balloon sent up to distract people in the very least, and if it was successfully pushed past the sheeple, a way for companies to make it look like they cared and/or were trying to do something. "Companies" should be the hint. Those animals don't do anything that doesn't make them money unless forced to, and the administration that floated the idea has done everything it could at every turn to make sure the only thing they were forced to do was make more money.

What's old is new again.

[nsayer]

How are these different from the indulgences the Catholic church used to sell?

For those unclear on the concept, the church used to sell certificates that granted time off from purgatory for your sins. To make a long story short, the unscrupulous sale of these are one of the big ticket items in the list of thesis that Martin Luther pinned up to the church door, which led eventually to the protestant reformation.

Re:What's old is new again.

[Entropy2016]

There are different because indulgences you buy them from a single centralized source, and there was no limit to their supply.

This is not the case with carbon credits, as they are limited in supply. Companies buy them from each other. When you run out of credits, you must buy them. But you can't buy from just anyone, you have to buy from people who haven't use up all theirs. As unpurchased credits become more scarce, their value goes up, which puts a soft, flexible restriction on the pollutant without a hard cap.

This allows the government to cap the net pollution, which is what matters.

It only appears analogous with indulgences if you deliberately narrow your perspective to only the sinner/polluter. You need to see this from the government's point of view, which is attempting to manage the system as a whole. Just because every individual's carbon output doesn't go down, doesn't mean this technique wouldn't reduce the net carbon output.

Re:What's old is new again.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're nuts if you think carbon credits are limited in supply. Especially the "personal" ones that those scam artists sell with no oversight at all.

Re:What's old is new again.

[jgtg32a]

They aren't any different the Catholic church was corrupt as hell, which is why everyone formed their own churches. They are both pure corruption.

/catholic

Bernie Madoff Ponzi Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

There is good science and junk science. Junk like this from people peddling C02 credits discredits valid science showing global warming, a legitimate concern.

Re:A first post should be more like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that I could raise the level of posts to read in order to block these out myself, but I shouldn't have to.

Oh, but you should. If you don't want to read trolls and flamebait, don't read them. It's that simple.

---

And by the way, lighten up. Do you really think the people who make posts like this have anything but the utmost of respect for our African-American brethren? I mean, after all, how could anybody possibly argue with free labor?

-A. Troll

Re:A first post should be more like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds good, that way any time somebody makes a post critical of a certain OS, company or political ideology, it can be wiped from the face of the internet. We can't have anybody who think any differently from you expressing themselves, nosiree. If you're going to browse at -1, you should expect this type of post. You don't walk on nails and then bitch when your feet start bleeding. Just let the moderation system do its job.

Re:A first post should be more like this

[hairyfeet]

While i would agree with you, you really have to remember that there is some really strong groupthink going on here at Slashdot sometimes. Not to mention the sockpuppet brigade. While I don't really care for all the "nigger nigger nigger" that seems to have become a part of EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION here on Slashdot, I personally think it is better to put up with them than deal with the real possibility that real comments will be deleted simply because they went against groupthink.

And now I would like to address the "nigger nigger nigger" trolls directly. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid your trolling simply doesn't measure up to the high standards we have here at Slashdot. You see, unlike at digg or fark, we here at Slashdot have a rich tradition of truly great trolling, and because of this we try to attract only the best and brightest of the trolling community. Our trolls have gone on to lead very rich and lucrative careers in exciting and rewarding fields such as shills for Microsoft and Comcast management. Who do you think came up with the "Vista Capable" program? That's right, a former Slashdot troll!

So please, in the future put more care and thought into your trolling. Remember that you are walking the path blazed by such luminaries as the GNAA and that you stand beside such greats as the shit eater troll and the ASCII goatse guy. So in the future try to remember the greats that came before you along with your trolling peers and live up to their high standards. Maybe if you troll hard you too will join the greats and have your portrait in the trolling hall of fame!(Currently located in the mens room of the Hooters restaurant in Paramus,NJ) Thank you for your time and may you have a successful career trolling here at slashdot!

Re:subsidized

[Dare nMc]

I was thinking the same thing. But on the same token the reason it is affordable to drive a car on pavement to work, have electric at home, fly in a airplane, etc is because the government has pooled our resources to subsidize each.
Without the Rural Electrification act it would be much cheaper for me to use solar, than buy and maintain the powerlines running to my house. Which has the higher subsidy? that is beyond my legal authority to get real numbers to figure out, so I'll just keep evaluating which is cheaper (no solar) until it changes (or not).

no approach to measure carbon footprint?

[smdm]

Yes and no.
Various research and commercial projects are working on assessing environmental effects caused by commercial products and services in consideration of their whole lifetime, namely Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA). 'Environmental effects' here include resource consumption, carbon emission and other aspects of the production in every phase (e.g. factory installation, factory running, transportation and so on). Some researchers defined a framework to conduct an LCA in a systematic way so that the product or service is scientifically assessed and compared with equivalent product or service.

However, little efforts are done on assessing a company, not its products and services. This is probably because there is no fair way to compare companies. If you sum up all carbon emissions caused by all products/services of Google and GM, of course GM is much more to be blamed, but is it a fair comparison? Google and GM plays a very different role in our society, their products can't be replaced each other. The key of LCA is to compare 'equivalent' products. Are there 'equivalent' companies on the earth? No!

I don't agree with the tone that carbon footprint is not comprehensively measured, but agree that attributing environmental effects to companies makes no sense; it's currently used just for advocating a few specific companies with less emissions by their nature. Unfair.

Re:no approach to measure carbon footprint?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two types of carbon footprint

1) An organisational footprint

The well known rules for setting the boundary condition and counting the carbon consistently are here ghgprotocol.org and were developed by the world business council

2) product footprint

This is newer but for example supermarkets in the UK have committed to putting grams of CO2 on the packet in the same way as calories.

A new UK ISO standard for this has recently been developed as a publically available standard and funded by public bodies - its called PAS2050. Its under consideration to become a full EU (EN) standard

Really?

[argStyopa]

It's almost like it's a snake-oil cure for an imagined ill, purveyed by an attention-whore politician* desperate to recoup some relevance.

* who, not insignificantly, stands to make a tidy sum whenever 'carbon shares' are traded through his firm...

Nah, couldn't be. Nobody would fall for the idea that a gas which makes up less than 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere is that big a deal, much less that humans' contribution to that gas (something like 1/10 of the natural contribution) is meaningful whatsoever.....would they?

Re:Really?

[Entropy2016]

Despite its relatively small concentration overall in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 Âm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 Âm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.

So what if it's a small amount of gas relative to the total atmosphere? That doesn't change the fact that its properties with respect to a specific band of thermal radiation are problematic for us.

It's easy to belittle small numbers. But how big of a number representing benzene concentration would you like to be exposed to? How much does it take to give you cancer? I promise you it's a tiny number.

What is relevant is what that concentration of something does. And in the case of atmospheric carbon this is significant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

Re:Really?

[argStyopa]

If someone was pouring benzine into my swimming pool, I'd be concerned.

But if there was already a gallon of benzine going into my swimming pool, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the guy with an eyedropper. Especially if all HE's going to be doing is change his output by a measly 10-20%.

Global warming tracks far closer to solar output than greenhouse gas emissions.
It's been significantly warmer and cooler, both within human experience.
Climate records suggest that large scale natural climate changes have occurred in very short timeframes.
It's not even clear (ASSUMING the globe is warming, and ASSUMING it's anthropogenic, and ASSUMING that it's possible for us to change the carbon output of humanity with 6+ billion people riotously reproducing, and most of them now starting to want cars, TVs, etc.) that climate change would be all negative for humanity. Sure, cities would inundate but no city was positioned geographically so as to last forever. What if that chemical being poured into the pool turns out to be chlorine? To a certain degree, it could be beneficial.

Penn & Teller had it right; the 'carbon credits' industry is far more like selling indulgences (buying freedom from guilt, from people who have neither the authority nor the power to do anything with your money) than science.

Re:Really?

[Entropy2016]

But if there was already a gallon of benzine going into my swimming pool, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the guy with an eyedropper. Especially if all HE's going to be doing is change his output by a measly 10-20%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png (Reposted because you appear to have not read it properly, otherwise you'd see the error inherent in what you said).

Global warming tracks far closer to solar output than greenhouse gas emissions.

"One predicted effect of an increase in solar activity would be a warming of most of the stratosphere, whereas an increase in greenhouse gases should produce cooling there. The observed trend since at least 1960 has been a cooling of the lower stratosphere" (Wikipedia). On the other hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

It's been significantly warmer and cooler, both within human experience. Climate records suggest that large scale natural climate changes have occurred in very short timeframes.

First: Don't use the word "significantly" in a scientific context unless you happen to be presenting some statistical data which proves statistical significance. Otherwise you're it's a red flag that you're not someone who's done any real research, much less, fully understands what you just claimed. Scientists aren't as worried about the straight temperature as they are the rate of temperature change versus the ability of the natural environment to adapt to it. The problem has never been about "warm", it's about "climate change". There are few events where it warmed as quick as it has. Even more important is the projected warming.

It's not even clear (ASSUMING the globe is warming, and ASSUMING it's anthropogenic, and ASSUMING that it's possible for us to change the carbon output of humanity with 6+ billion people riotously reproducing, and most of them now starting to want cars, TVs, etc.) that climate change would be all negative for humanity.

Do you even have a clue about what is projected to happen if the global thermohaline circulation shuts down because of glacial runoff flowing into a critical portion of it (in the northern atlantic)? You don't sound like you do. How many specific climate change consequences have you looked into besides just the temperature?

Penn & Teller had it right; the 'carbon credits' industry is far more like selling indulgences (buying freedom from guilt, from people who have neither the authority nor the power to do anything with your money) than science.

Except that indulgences were sold without limit and at a fixed price. Carbon credits will be limited, and increase in value when their supply drops. The carbon-credit idea will allow particular businesses to "indulge", but not the entire economy because the government would have only allocated out a fixed number of credits. The net sum of all the carbon credits allocated to the economy is the economy's carbon-output cap. It can only behave equivalent to indulgences if they were to allocate too many credits to everyone (a very easy problem to avoid). Don't mistake local flexibility in carbon output for flexibility on the net output.

Glass half full...

[TapeCutter]

For the half century I have been on this planet NIMBYisim has been a constant, however it failed to stop us building every single coal plant that exists today. Every one of those plants will also need replacing over the next half century. If we continue the practice of ignoring the NIMBY's and replace those plants with something cleaner then everything should pan out ok for my grandkids.

Your tracking carbon all over the house!

[CranberryKing]

Oops, my bad. That's not carbon, it's bullshit.

Environmentalism is the new fascism. But this is still fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA

Not inexact

[S-100]

"Carbon Neutrality" is not an inexact science. The amount of carbon offsets to be purchased is the amount needed for the PR department to declare the company as "carbon neutral".

It is worse than that

[WindBourne]

Not only is oil subsidized, but so is coal. The feds have paid BIG bucks for coal miners health (and continue to). Diregard the issue of Carbon emissions, and instead pay attention to Mercury and lead emission. Why do you think that ppl can no longer eat sushi everyday? Mercury. And where did 90% come from? Coal plants. Acid rain? Mostly Coal plants. "Clean" coal received billions from congress. Who subsidizes the medical costs of these? We do

So, when I hear ppl saying that Wind and Solar only exists BECAUSE of gov interference, I just have to laugh.

Re:It is worse than that

[daveime]

"Why do you think that ppl can no longer eat sushi everyday?"

Your girlfriend left you AGAIN ?

Re:It is worse than that

[operagost]

With all this coal, you could cook your sushi. Why are you eating it raw?

You are confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Gas which is four to eight times more efficient at reflecting sunlight out into space is O2.

Please look up what "greenhouse gas" means.

Ocean Oscillations

[MightyDrunken]

I read an interesting book which predicted the "climate" in the next 10-20 could be different over the world than we are used to. The idea is that there are a number of different oscillations in the world's oceans which affect rainfall patterns, winds and air temperature. The book made a number of predictions, most of which I forget, they did say that Asia could be quite a bit dryer leading to problems in food production. The other prediction I remember was that northern Europe would cool slightly.
There was also a recent study which predicted a slowing in the measured warming of the Earth. Presumably as some of the heat is dumped deep into the ocean.

MOD PARENT UP

[wrook]

Damn I wish I had mod points. This is a really important point that people overlook. Energy costs dollars. And within a certain range, it costs roughly the same wherever you go. So you can calculate the worst case energy usage in anything you buy.

Also, if you want to conserve energy, one of the best things to do is simply to stop buying things. pretty much everything you buy has used a fair percentage of it's cost in energy. So if you can avoid buying it, you save the energy that went into making/transporting/displaying/etc it.

Of course, this is pretty easy advice to follow in today's economy :-)

Re:A first post should be more like this

[Hal_Porter]

Actually moderation is sort of like a Trolling Credit system. So if you troll or defy the groupthink you get modded down and eventually end up posting at -1 if your registered or get IP blocked if you're an AC.

But if you post a few informative comments, i.e. comments that more people like than dislike you earn karma. You can then spend it on trolling or arguing with conventional wisdom. Or in Carbon Credit terms you get to keep trolling so long as you post the odd Trolling Credit comment which is not completely obnoxious. You can also claim you're Trolling Neutral so long as your karma isn't dropping.

Of course some people are so irritating they manage to get modded down for agreeing with groupthink, like the dreaded twitter sockpuppets.

Someone, anyone, call me on it?

[TapeCutter]

Can someone explain to me how timmarthy's rhetorical bullshit is insightfull?

My assertion is "every national science body of the planet agrees with the [IPCC] consensus", my assertion is not original but it is falsifyable and therefore testable.

I have done my homework and looked for counter examples over several years but that was to satisfy my own curiosity - after all that is how scientific skepticisim deals with an assertion - you don't try to prove it, you try to falsify it! No matter how many lists I throw at timmarthy I cannot "prove" the list is complete, let alone get him to read all their statements.

Therfore according to the scientific method it's up to timmarthy (or anyone else who wants to "call me on it") to falsify my assertion if they can (ie:peer review). Just one counter-example is all the "proof" we need but are yet to see. In the unlikely event that we do see a counter example then we will have learned something via the scientific method. The elegance of this method is that the more people who try but fail to find a counter example the more robust my assertion becomes.

Re:Someone, anyone, call me on it?

[MrHanky]

You must be new here. "Insightful" means "I agree", signed by an anonymous coward[1] with modpoints. Very few /.ers have any knowledge of science.

[1] Small letter ac, as opposed to Anonymous Coward, who posts.

Re:Someone, anyone, call me on it?

[TapeCutter]

Well yeah, I'm newer than you and a bit of an optimist. Normally I would ignore it but this particular thread is currently spawning more astroturf than usual.

"Very few /.ers have any knowledge of science."

All the more reason to keep posting (see sig below). ;)

Re:Someone, anyone, call me on it?

[conureman]

Much like "real life", we are all "suffering fools" (anonymous cowards with mod points). I, for one, would not be lurking here if the MAJORITY of /.ers did not embrace science. Perhaps we are enduring a September-like influx. All things must pass, YMMV.

Re:Someone, anyone, call me on it?

[MrHanky]

I don't think it's a new September, it's just a function of karma and modpoints. Slashdotters read and write, and we all want a positive karma. The problem is, modpoints are distributed to those with positive karma, and those with positive karma are the same that post what brings positive karma. This encourages group-think. The "wise" people spout off what they've already read is "insightful".

The majority of Slashdot doesn't know science from a collection of fortune cookies.

Carbon Offsets equals modern day Indulgences

[FireStormZ]

one more way in which far left environmentalism is the most fundamentalist religion on the planet..

Oxymoron

[Anonymous Coward]

If I am made of carbon how can I become carbon neutral?

Re:A first post should be more like this

[daveime]

Yes, great idea ... lets arbitrarily lock out 255 IP address, probably belonging to Internet Cafes or innocent internet users, just to make you feel like you've achieved a landmark for your principles.

Douchebag

USEFUL IDIOCY

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be intellectually devoid of reason to buy into the idea of the current Global Warming Hysteria and secondly, thinking that throwing money down some rathole for what really amounts to the largest swindle in history is anything but confirmation of the corruption of the GWH movement and the real motivation behind the hysteria, to seperate you and your industrialized economy from its prosperity.

Lastly, I am a total ass for not taking your stupid money in this regard but then again, I do have a moral conscience and have to remain true to the truth.

So fork over your cash to dubious and nefarious "interests" all in the name of making penance for your guilt of being a carbon based lifeform with every waking breath!

Scam

[Ferretman]

It should be fairly clear to nearly anybody that the carbon offset stuff is a scam. They're rather like modern day indulgences...

What a scam.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea. Lets start charging for the stuff WE EXHALE.

Re:A first post should be more like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Hairyfeet, you misspelled luckrative. Here, I've fixed it for you...

I'm sorry, but i'M Afraid your trolling Simply doesn'T meAsure up to the high standards we have here at sLashdot. you see, unlike at dIgg or fark, we here at slashdot have a rich traditioN of truly great trolling, and because of thIS we Try to Attract only the best aND brIghteSt of the trolling commUnity. our trolls have gone on to lead very riCh and lucKrative careers in exciting and rewarding fields such as shills for STALLMAN AND TORVALDS management. who do you think came up with the "vista capaBle" progrAm? that's right, a former sLashdot troLl!

So please, ...

"Carbon Footprint" Is A Bad Metaphor

[stillbilluntil]

While âoecarbon footprintâ has become part of the popular lexicon, nobody knows what the concept means in specific, real-world circumstances. In other words, there is no consensus on how to measure or quantify a carbon footprint. Despite the growing number of basic online calculators and institutional protocols, the reality is that not even the units of measurement are clear. As a result, it seems unfair to beat up Dell for what appears to be a well-intended effort to reduce its environmental impact. The real culprit is the metaphor âoeCarbon Footprint.â The term is rooted in the language of Ecological Footprinting. The Global Footprint Network interprets the term as a measure of the âoebiocapacity required to sequester (through photosynthesis) the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion.â In other words, how much land would it take to grow enough plants to process the carbon emissions naturally. In this context, the basic metric for measuring carbon footprints is land area. Because CO2 is physically measured in mass units (tons), this area-based approach would require the conversion from a mass unit into an area unit (hectares), which would have to be based on a variety of assumptions that increase the uncertainties and errors associated with a particular footprint estimate. To make matters worse, academic and institutional definitions have endorsed a wide range of methodologies raning from direct CO2 emissions to full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions assessments. The bottom line is that the metaphor was a poor choice to begin with. Complete comment here . . . http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/index.php/1959/dell-inc-has-proclaimed-itself-carbon-neutral-do-you-agree/

How could offets possibly help?

[FrozenFOXX]

Here's my question. Let's suppose for just a moment that buying carbon offsets really was giving money to a reputable green power company, just for the sake of argument. Given that...

A) If the company buying the offsets isn't actually USING that power, they're still not being any more earth-friendly than they were in the first place.

B) How come they can't pay this renewable energy company to start supplying the company instead, which would actually support it.

C) Say you're the green power company. Who's actually using your services? If you can't actually get these companies to buy your power, your business is a bit of a failure, isn't it? Doesn't that just make you a carbon sinkhole since you can't sell your power to anyone?

If I'm wrong on any of those please let me know since I wouldn't want to be walking around with a wrong idea about this. Still, if you're not actually selling the power then all you're doing is making power that nobody's using...how in the fuck is that green?

Carbon credits

[Anonymous Coward]

Tulips anyone?

Because global warming is a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

al gore is a lying bastard.

Re:Offsets, offsets, little itty bitty offsets, ..

[itsybitsy]

Whom ever labeled the parent comment as flamebait can't handle the facts of life. Carbon offsets are a form of giving forgiveness to polluters. It's a scam that won't help the environment.

Have the guts to face the truth in comments like the parent comment. Don't suppress points of view, embrace them.

Re:A first post should be more like this

[conureman]

I too, could live without the {expletive deleted} who post that kind of stuff. You've heard of the "slippery slope"? Well, this is why my friend Charlie Artman supported the "Filthy Speech Movement". Who are you going to designate to discern for you? I browse wide open, and see some shit that anybody could do without, but that is my choice, and frankly, its not the worst abuse that I bring down on myself. I was just thinking this morning, about a "-2 Troll" setting to preserve decorum &c., but I reckon that things are working good enough already, so I don't sweat it too much. I'd like it, personally if I myself got fewer "off topic" and "Troll" mods on my well thought out and on-topic (and humorous) comments, but ANYONE can get mod points, and I'm actually not as funny as I'd like to be.

Re:A first post should be more like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the comment adds nothing to the conversation, but deleting comments just because you don't like them is still censorship and comments have never been deleted here on Slashdot aside from that one that infringed the Church of Scientology copyright and had to be removed due to their legal action.

I usually skip past obvious trolls after reading the first sentence, it doesn't really take much of my time, and it certainly doesn't warrant a deletion option as the down-modding is usually sufficient. Besides despite the troll poem being racist, I found it to be well written and amusing, mostly because it was so blatantly full of shit.

Only a fool pays for carbon offsets

[karbonkenny]

Get as many as you want, for free! Amuse yourself and your friends.