Slashdot Mirror
The Problem With Carbon-Cutting Programs
Med-trump writes "Alberta's $60 million carbon-cutting program is failing, according to the latest report from the Canadian province's auditor-general, Merwan Saher. A news article in Nature adds: 'the province, despite earlier warnings, has not improved its regulatory structure — and calls the emissions estimates and the offsets themselves into question.'"
What? Do you really think the tarsands province has an interest in putting carbon emissions on its beloved oil? Or that the federal Conservative government of the corporate elite wants them to either?
It's not much of a surprise. Kyoto was designed (intentionally or not) as a subsidy that would allow business as usual while just writing a check to Eastern Europe. The baseline CO2 levels were set at 1990 levels, which was right before the collapse of the USSR and the resultant massive decrease in their CO2 output levels. (Likewise, our CO2 production has decreased since 2007 since our economy has tanked.)
The various carbon markets and carbon trading schemes have likewise been plagued with fraud. It comes as absolutely no surprise that Alberta's emissions trading scheme has run into identical problems.
While carbon trading schemes are admirable in their attempt to internalize external costs, in practice they're just not a very good idea.
Alberta is the home of the tar sands... the dirtiest source of petroleum. Do you actually think they are interested in cutting carbon emissions?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Like the Alberta government is going to do anything effective when almost their entire economy rides on the oil and gas industry. And like the Conservative Federal government is going to call their heartland to task.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
For those that don't bother to read TFA, the one-sentence summary is that "offsets", where rather than paying the tax companies pay for credits obtained for emission-cutting programs in agriculture or in developing countries, are often dubious because the "offsets" are not properly audited and often just pay for activities that would have occurred anyway without the subsidy This is relatively easy to fix. Just tighten up the rules on offsets. It doesn't damn emissions trading in general.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
That fact remains that the air is completely horrible in China. Sure it is not a permanent or perfect solution to move pollution to china but in the short term, at least, it greatly improves our quality of life.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
...did that read weird to you? Never mind. What happens is highly industrialised states go cap in hand to developing states and buy carbon allowance off them - basically a license to carry on polluting at the rate they are yet still meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Loads of problems with that. /., then you should know that 20 years is really not going to work. ZERO chance of it.
First, CO2 is far more tied to economics and ag than to ppl, so per capitia is not only unfair, it is just plain brain-dead.
Secondly, nations will lie about population.
Thirdly, this encourages ppl growth, not cutting them back. You actually REWARD a nation to have more ppl. Kind of a foolish concept.
Fourth, US is already below 18 and probably closer to 15, while EU is climbing towards 15, unless you choose to ignore those nations with all of your growth.
Fifth, the idea of handing out certificates, is BS esp. when you point out that Germany is cheating at it. Germany and Japan speak of wanting to do the right thing, but they are now cutting their nuke plants, rather than pushing for SAFE nuke plants. So what will work? Well over the next 20 years, it will not be AE. So, they will have to move nukes to coal and gas. If they do that, their costs go up and businesses will move production to China, India, Brazil, Poland, Slovania, etc, all places with massively growing CO2 emissions. IOW, your idea will make things WORSE, by pushing manufacturing to those nations that choose to cheat, or have been granted a cheat.
Finally, if you listened to some of the stories in
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When you can get your conscience clear by buying a couple of trillion carbon from http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com/home.do ?
The program may be failing...
and that may mean the policy is succeeding.
I invite you to read The Energy Trap.
Enjoy the other articles on that blog too.
bjd
Next time you are standing on a road, have a look down and contemplate what you are standing on, why it is there, how it got there, and who paid for it.
Who paid for the crusades in Iraq? Who benefitted? Why? While we are at it, what is the cost of the middle east policy? Who benefits? Why?
Without even jumping into climate destruction ( although, again, who will pay for it? Who benefitted? Why? ), there is the 'other' environmental disaster - air pollution. How much does it cost? Who pays for it? Why?
Subsidy doesn't quite describe the situation; perhaps "hand out" or "graft" are closer to the mark.
Why not simply REQUIRE the reductions where technically possible (forget about 'cost efficiency') and update the requirements as new technology arrives.
1. Because it is disconnected from the physical limits of the environment.
2. Because it would require a myriad of standards, each one of which will be twisted by it's fight with industry. (ie: it makes "divide and conquer" an obvious strategy for industry)
I'm not saying that standards enforced by law are a bad thing, I just don't think they're the best solution to such a broad problem. In the early 90's Reagan was proud to be a leading supporter of the international cap and trade treaty that is now in place for sulphur emission. As usual, economic alarmists of the day all started screaming about an economic apocalypse. The treaty was signed by most industrial nations, the economic apocalypse failed to materialise and acid rain has gone away as a major environmental problem. As you say this is how it always goes, at least it has been in the 50yrs I've been watching. Some other examples are, lead in petrol, asbestos, clean air act(s), DDT, tobacco health warnings, the list is long and the propaganda on every one of these issues from industry has been without exception utterly immoral.
International cap and trade treaties are by far the best long term solution to AGW and many other tragedies of the commons (such as overfishing)...
Cap - Because there is time dependent physical limit to the resource.
Trade - Because capitalist markets are the most efficient way to distribute a finite resource.
The size of the cap is the only detail that is rightfully determined by science, the rest of the detail is politics and accounting. Will greed and fraud occur? - Of course, it does everywhere else.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
You have it totally backwards.
.5-1GW EACH WEEK and they have said that they have ZERO intentions of stopping this for the foreseeable future. IOW, their emissions from coal will continue to get worse. In addition, they are buying new gas/diesel cars at breakneck speeds. They will not move to electric cars anytime soon because they do not have enough excess production to support it. Basically, China has not choice but to continue what they are doing, OR, they must pay BILLIONS, if not TRILLIONS, out to western nations for technology. That is why they spy on us so heavily. We have the technology that they need to avoid paying us. And since the Chinese gov. sees themselves in a cold war with the west, that is the last thing that they want to do.
China gets about 85% of their electricity from Coal and natural gas, of which 75% is from coal. Now, China is building 1-2 NEW COAL PLANTS of
Now, America's CO2 profile is interesting. The largest emissions that we have is our electrical production. It accounts for more than 41% of our CO2. Of that, the majority comes from Coal, not natural gas. Unless you inject the CO2 from coal into the ground, then the best burning coal is still worse than natural gas. Yet, our coal usage continue to drop. It used to be over 70% and is now below 45%. It is expected to be below 33% by 2015 (or was it 2020?).
The second largest emitter in America is Transportation (of all sorts) is about 33-36% of total emissions. How easy is it to move off gas/diesel? Well, are slowly moving towards natural gas vehicles as well as electric. We have BOTH in cheap supply (relative to most other nations). A number of natural gas supply states are pushing to buy state fleets and add natural gas fuel stations. Electric cars are coming in a big way here over the next 3 years. The reason is because of the cheap electricity and the already built up grid that can handle 100% of our vehicles being converted to electricity (except in the northwest; it would need some work; not a big deal). That will drop the second largest amount by a great deal over the next 5-10 years.
Just on a per capitia basis, America will see our CO2 emissions drop by 25-50% over the next 10 years. China's will not only continue to climb, but once OCO2 is on-line, then China will not be able to stop reports from getting out. It will be shown that China's emissions are more than 3x what we think it is. Add the fact that China has ZERO intentions of slowing emissions and you suddenly realize that a business does not want to go elsewhere and suffer the taxes that they would be hit with. Far better to upgrade local.
As to tax vs. conservation, great. I agree. Far better to use conservation. HOWEVER, a tax on the CO2 waste, allows govs. businesses, and consumers to decide how best to lower their emissions. Telling others that they MUST DO SOMETHING, well, that is not working so well. Do note that with taxes increasing, then there is an incentive to lower your CO2 emissions and have the least amount of taxes hitting you all around the world, as well as the local businesses in your neck of the woods. However, the tax approach makes us ALL work towards it. Forced conservation will be ignored by govs. all over.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Alberta is the home of the tar sands... the dirtiest source of petroleum. Do you actually think they are interested in cutting carbon emissions?"
I live in Alberta, I've flown over the oil sands, and I've seen the tailing ponds. Calling it the dirtiest source of petroleum is just stupid.
If you don't think resarch is being done to reduce carbon emissions, then it's clear you haven't actually looked into the matter. All the major players are invested in it, often collaboratively. Same with research on tailing ponds - which, finally, are starting to be reclaimed. Slowly, to be sure. It's a tough problem.
Now go and research what's been done all over Africa and Asia, where unrestricted petroleum industry has left vastly polluted environments, and toxic chemicals in riverbeds. Try the Niger Delta, and get a little perspective. Quit quoting similarly misinformed environmental nutbags.
Alberta has its problems, but we're working on it. Now perhaps you go away, whittle yourself a computer out of some plentiful wood that runs on a light breeze and a hint of jasmine and uses a reflecting pool for display, and then come back and engage in unreasonable hyperbole again.
So many questions, so few answers. I'll help you with the first ones
I'm standing on a road.
It's made of asphalt, largely a petroleum product
It was built to facilitate the movement of people and goods from point A to point B
It was paid for by the taxpayers who wanted it and who's lives would be a lot harder without it.
It is just silly to consider a road a subsidy, graft, or handout to a particular industry sector. Try riding your bike to get to work through miles of mud.
Do you even read what you write? One car with a smoky exhaust will kill the planet because the moment the smoke leaves the exhaust pipe, the entire world is as dirty as that exhaust pipe.
Learn to love Alaska
Canada is the third worst CO2 emitter per capita in the world behind the US and Australia. (Surprise! China is actually quite low per capita, lower than than any EU country.) At 40M tons of CO2 per year the tar sands oil production is the single largest emitter of CO2 in the world, but even if the oil sands shut down completely, Canada would still be #3 ahead of Saudi Arabia. The sad part is that only 10% of the tar sands can be made into marketable oil by current means, the other 90% requires more energy to process, which means emitting even more CO2 per barrel. Already the process requires half the energy the oil can release to process it. Even if it reaches 100% they'll still do it if it makes money. They're going to need several nuclear power plants to keep up with production targets.
Granted, any country with long cold winters has a serious disadvantage. Air conditioning usually has to make a 15-30F difference to beat the heat, but in Canadian winters the furnace is called upon to make a 50-70F difference compared to outside temperatures. Up here, air conditioning is optional, heating is not. Many European countries employ district heating systems to provide more fuel-efficient heat, but the lack of population density makes it less feasible in Canada to the extent seen in Scandinavia for example.
Here's a nifty gadget to check the CO2 emissions of any country. I found Sweden to be interesting, they have roughly the same climate as Southern Ontario, the most populated area of Canada.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
No, it didn't work for acid rain. It reduced acid rain, in the US, and created more of it, elsewhere, like in China, where noone gives a shit. It swept the 'dirt' that is acid rain, under the rug that is China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5290236.stm
That's an interesting claim, but it doesn't seem to hold water. Sulfur emissions are predominantly from power plants (73%), and the U.S. hasn't exported power plants to China. You could argue that exporting industry to China has effectively exported power plants to China, but as far as I understand the number of power plants in America has not fallen by 33%, thus actual reductions have been achieved and the sorry state of China's sulfur emissions are the result of China not taking any such measures. And the most likely consequence of not having done anything about acid rain in the U.S. would be more environmental degradation in the U.S. with no major impact on China's situation. Environmental regulations aren't a real reason for exporting industry to China.
It's quite probably that MBAs specifically and Business training in general are the reason for excessive offshoring. Business studies are teaching managers to maximize ROA, return on assets. There are two ways to increase that ratio, maximizing returns and minimizing assets. Offshoring and outsourcing are easy ways to reduce the assets side of the equation and to artificially meet ROA targets. Of course, the end result is you end with a company which is good for nothing but it's brand name, but MBAs are notorious for being short-term thinkers. The inescapable consequences of their management decisions are for the suckers who haven't already jumped ship to a better paying job at another company.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Anyone who refers to the Iraq war as a "crusade" is obviously an idiot. The fact that you apparently think roads only existed after the advent of the automobile only serves to cement that assessment. Whether you're intentionally trolling is a different question, but the fact that you got moded "informative" says a lot about the plummeting intelligence of the average slashdot member.
One of the most important achievments of the Roman Empire was the construction of a massive system of roads, starting in 500 BC. I guess the chariot-makers corporations must have had a massive hold over the Roman Senate, huh?
Alberta is the on province in Canada without ANY sales tax. The reason for this is the oil companies pay enough to basically run government on those revenues.
If you don't see a conflict of interest there, you are blind.