Be the Spark!

contribute now

LittleCarbonFeet's comments:

on Capping Carbon in the Northwest

Mr Wynn,

Sorry, I didn't realize you had posted a response to my last comment.

1. It sounds like you may be mistaking carbon offsets for renewable energy credits. I am not sure. Perhaps you could clarify? Furthermore, "Planting trees" is not an offset. Managing an existing forest, avoiding deforestation, or reforesting a previously forested area is an acceptable and scientific way to capture carbon and generate a carbon offset. I know of no windfarm in the gorge that requires the removal of a forest. In fact, I think the wind farm you specify - Stateline - is being developed in a part of Oregon where there are no natural forests. Additionally, I think there is an argument to be made that since the windfarm is protecting land from further development, it is sequestering additional carbon.

2. I am comfortable with the material requirements numbers you have suggested - [url]http://www.rnp.org/projects/stateline.html[/url] is where I get my data. It is pretty clear about the land use - farming will continue. Your comments on other effects are not new. Wherever human beings engage in economic activities "erosion, destruction of wild habitats, disruption of water flow, and numerous bird deaths" usually results. My point is that these are not problems associated purely with wind power.

I agree with you that offset programs can be easily manipulated. It is one of the reasons that we need regulation of the industry. The market is not pure, or perfect, and cannot be relied on completely to manage itself.

(Also, I think it would be fair to identify yourself and your employer. I could do so, but I'd like to give you the opportunity first.)

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

on Capping Carbon in the Northwest

I am going to call your attention to the homepage of the American Physical Society to show you the reality of their position - go look for yourself at [url]www.aps.org[/url].


APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged

[b]The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."[/b]

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and [b]it is not peer reviewed.[/b]

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

on Capping Carbon in the Northwest

And, climatetodd, we have a voluntary program like this alive and well in Portland today. Portland has a Carbon Reduction Action Group. Google it.

A CRAG (or Carbon Reduction Action Group) is a group of people who have decided to act together to reduce their individual and collective carbon footprints. They do this in annual cycle. First they set themselves an annual emissions target. Then they keep track of their emissions over the year by keeping a record of their household energy use and private car and plane travel.

Finally, at the end of the year, they take responsibility for any ?carbon debt? (i.e. emissions over and above their ration) that they have built up. All carbon debts are paid into the group?s ?carbon fund? at the current price per ton of CO2.

What could be a more market-based solution than that? Its like the lemonade-stand for cap-and-trade.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

on Capping Carbon in the Northwest

I think John Charles is missing the cost issue. The enjoyment of life through a sustainable climate is not an abundant and limitless resource.

I maintain individual participation will drive transparency - as Reuben states, more participants need to be part of this market.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

on Capping Carbon in the Northwest

ClimateTodd, because one project in a portfolio of projects fails to deliver its objectives, it does not mean that the whole system fails. Look at the markets today - if a company fails to generate profits for its shareholders, bankruptcy soon follows. Just because one company fails doesnt mean the whole of capitalism fails. Rather, it is a natural part of market function.

I agree completely with Eric De Place on the improvements - we need auctions, to create fair value to consumers.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

on Capping Carbon in the Northwest

A recent WWF study found that "Not one of the G8 countries are implementing enough measures...to keep global temperature rise below 2 deg C". We are not doing enough and we are missing the scale and coverage necessary to see a cap-and-trade mechanism work effectively on a global scale, like it did for Sulphur Dioxide and acid rain in the '90s. Clearly, cap-and-trade is no silver bullet.

Any cap-and-trade system must have a mechanism through which to address issues like environmental integrity and perverse incentives. Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an article detailing how multinational chemical company Rhodia SA is benefitting from a nearly $1-billion windfall by making some minor adjustments to their manufacturing processes, INCREASING greenhouse gas emissions while doing so.

Is this an example of market failure? No, it is an example of the current market working. The challenge we face is one of responding to market design flaws early on in the process in a way that does not compromise the overall environmental benefits of carbon reduction projects. Once the market is operational, it becomes extremely difficult to modify its parameters, this action possibly adversely affecting investment values and consequently generating significant resistance.

If we move forward with a market-based solution to climate change, we as individual consumers MUST demand transparency in these cap-and-trade markets, by participating in the process as activist-shareholders. We cannot surrender our future climate to the back-room deals of multi-national corporations.

Additionally, we should engage in projects that are regionally based, just like those in the proposed WCI cap-and-trade system. This means that carbon revenues are retained within the economic zone, carbon projects have more visibility and higher environmental standards, and the region can become a model of how to implement a cap-and-trade system effectively.

Every human being has a vested interest in a sustainable climate. Every human being needs food and shelter, and some quality of life. It is our moral duty to current and future generations to protect these interests. While it is not without flaws, the WCI cap-and-trade mechanism is perhaps the most feasible method to address the need to decrease our emissions without damaging our economy.

[i]Disclaimer: I am a member of the Oregon branch of the Citizen's Climate Lobby [url]http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org[/url], my business is in carbon offsets and I participate in a local Carbon Reduction Action Group (CRAG), a really good way to learn about cap-and-trade through personal experience.[/i]

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Thanks to our Sponsor:
become a sponsor
Web Analytics