Can carbon trading curb global warming? If no, can you suggest other ways?

Question

Can carbon trading curb global warming? If no, can you suggest other ways?

Answer 1

Carbon credit trading is a money-maker created to give the rich an excuse to avoid the lifestyle changes the "man-made global warming" cult proposes to enforce on the US and Europe.

The program is similar to the Catholic church's sale of dispensations before the Reformation.

Answer 2

A carbon cap and trade system is one of the most important steps in curbing global warming, because of the cap part.  It allows a government to put a ceiling on the total amount of carbon its industries are allowed to emit, which is exactly what we need to do.

Theoretically this could even be applied to individuals, as everyone could be given a carbon credit card which would be similar to money.  This would be a complicated system to create, but would allow us to put even stricter limits on the amount of carbon our countries emit.

Another possibility is a carbon tax, which is similar to a carbon cap and trade system, except it doesn't put a ceiling on carbon emissions.  It allows people to continue emitting as much as they want, as long as they can pay for it.

The good thing about a carbon tax is that it's easy to apply to both companies and individuals.  If you buy a gallon of gas, you're paying a carbon tax, for example.  The bad part is that it doesn't restrict total emissions (just discourages them), and people absolutely hate the word "tax", so it's hard to enact politically.

Other solutions include subsidizing alternative fuel and energy technologies, which is easier to do when the government is getting money from a carbon cap or tax system.  This influx of carbon-related money can be used to fund low-emissions technologies.

Answer 3

no it cant.  If someone "buys someone elses carbon credits" the same amount of carbon still gets released into the atmosphere, and someone else is a little richer, so its total BS.  Socialist, BS.  Just a redistribution of wealth, which is the main goal of the kyoto accord.

We could..... all die, that will stop global warming.

Answer 4

yes.

it worked for acid rain so why not for this?

Answer 5

Nuke down the population, a few billion at a time.

Answer 6

The jury is still out on global warming being something that should be principally put on the shoulders of man made pollution.  And in the past it has been determined from ice core measurements that high levels of CO2 have occurred before man cooked over fires or made iron tools.

Free markets help to find the most effective energy sources and   organisms like algae, pythoplankton, Trees and switch grass can convert CO2 and be processed to extract ethanol or bio diesel. Some alarmists noted the carbonic acid increase in the ocean will kill off the water borne life forms noted above, they will in fact adapt over generations, which can occur rapidly with single cell and smaller organisms.

Getting back to the Carbon Trading suggestion, it is also an inefficient process, better for small venture capital and large  companies expend money on research and development for better, cost effective, sustainable resource energy options.

Answer 7

Not very well other than punishing people for buying refined petroleum, and historically tariffs/embargoes don't improve economic consumption.  There was a tariff on imported automobiles in the 1970s, but US made cars sucked so much people angrily paid more money for quality.  A carbon tax would amount to the same and would just anger people for paying more and wouldn't offset the number of people willing to invest in electronic motors.

If you want to curb global warming, or the factors that the political organization the IPCC claims cause global warming, you have to set uniform rules for every nation on the planet.  India and China and several developing nations aren't going to go for that, a carbon tax would just raise prices in NATO countries and raise consumer prices because of increased transport costs.  Get prepared for $1000 plane tickets, the worst source of emission.  And there would be virtually no industry in the US because most of the companies would go ahead and outsource somewhere they could pollute as much as they wanted.

So the factors that are attributed to causing global warming by the IPCC would not be offset that much globally, in fact the lower regulations in other nations would probably exacerbate them.

The best and most sure way to cap carbon dioxide emissions would be to return to a pastoral-agricultural form of lifestyle and live like the Amish.  Or people could invest in nuclear energy, funny how the left wants to be all things French EXCEPT that, and it has been proven to work.  The carbon tax is bogus and is just a UN agenda for some secret purpose.

Answer 8

Surcharge for pollution-any pollution. Carbon trading has a place but the tax would raise the price now and would help solve many problems.

We have the technology to move past the carbon debate. We do not have time to go through the government red tape, government has to change. Without governments mandating renewable resources that do not harm the environment, we are doomed. We have to take the time to get it right. With oil on the decline, we have to make massive changes, swiftly. But we can not do this twice, or three times - like in the past; we have to put our money in the best return on investments and where we get multiple benefits. We can not redo this one. We have had most of this technology for 20 years but have not implemented it. We know what is cost effective; we know where we need better technology. The fossil fuel depression with global warming will be the worst economic downturn in world history. But this is not doom and gloom; we have the ability to fix our mess and enough time. Solar Concentrating Electric Power Plants, wind, wave, small hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear energy are what we need. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, global warming and cleanup) for oil, natural gas, coal, cigarettes, cooling towers, cars, trains and airplanes. Raising the price of fossil fuel today gives us more time to solve these problems and helps pay for the 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years. Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal.

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve global warming. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon – anyone willing to pay $30 per gallon for gas. The problem is the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages (gone at least to run cars, heat homes, power electric plants or air travel). The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%, but I would prefer a 5% Solution over the next 10 years for a 50% reduction. At the same time, we have to be building renewable energy so at the end of 10 years we can cut an additional 20%. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak natural gas in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. Global warming projects over the next 90 years that carbon dioxide will skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels, but where is this fuel? We have to come up with what will take its place and cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuclear winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain and other forests, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy food from out side the USA to send to starving people since our grain is not available.

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and we are far behind).

Now what USA Presidential candidate is giving you the facts so you can make an educated decision of which one to vote for?

Education is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface. Watch for changes in the sight coming soon.

Answer 9

My feeling is that carbon trading is a good way forward for industrial emitters.  It puts a price on carbon and economic incentives on reducing carbon emissions, provided it is tuned correctly to give the right incentives.  Thus far the price of carbon in the EU system has been too low to be meaningful.  My feeling is that it would be far too bureaucratic, complex and probably politically not feasible to impose carbon trading for individual citizens.  There is a lot that can be done through regulations, incentives and information campaigns though.