What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

yellow science

  • #21
I don't have anything new to say about the matter other than that someday I hope to plant a lemon tree here. That is all.
 
  • #23
I hope to plant more nepenthes to suck up some of my CO2 emissions.

My thing is if everyone buys carbon credits, then who is the one making less carbon? That means that the same amount of carbon is being emitted and therefor the same crap is happening with a whole lot of money floating around.

Gore is a ******* kook. I despise the poor slob. He is a fat grotesque man now and loves to buy his OFFSETS to give the impression of being green. He didn't add solar to his place till it was pointed out he didn't have anything "green" like that at his place.

So I thought I had the idea of carbon credits was a load of cow patties. Does absolutely nothing for the environment. If you want someone to plant a tree then join the Arbor Day Foundation If you want someone to produce "green" technologies invest in those companies.
 
  • #24
You have a point, Josh - carbon credits are pure BS and they don't address the problem of emissions at all. It's a gesture by the industry to look like they're taking care of the problem. But that doesn't at all dispute global warming. I haven't really heard anything here that has - best luck convincing someone else. I'm bored with this thread.
~Joe
 
  • #26
No no. It's not that the people who buy credits make less carbon for buying them. It's that the companies take up MORE carbon to offset it. It's like this:

Person A has a carbon footprint of 100

Person A gives person B money to better the environement through various means

Person B did have a carbon footprint of zero, but with the new money they now can take up enough carbon from the environment to make their footprint -100

Now person A still has a carbon footprint of 0 because they paid for it. They still produce the same amount of carbon, but they paid someone else to have a negative footprint so it's as if they did it. As long as it gets done, it doesn't matter is the mindset. ALL it is is a way to be able to say you're carbon neutral and not have to DO anything and change your lifestyle. You just write a check and you don't feel guilty anymore. You feel like you're saving the planet when you're just giving money to a good cause.
 
  • #27
No no. It's not that the people who buy credits make less carbon for buying them. It's that the companies take up MORE carbon to offset it. It's like this:

Person A has a carbon footprint of 100

Person A gives person B money to better the environement through various means

Person B did have a carbon footprint of zero, but with the new money they now can take up enough carbon from the environment to make their footprint -100

Now person A still has a carbon footprint of 0 because they paid for it. They still produce the same amount of carbon, but they paid someone else to have a negative footprint so it's as if they did it. As long as it gets done, it doesn't matter is the mindset. ALL it is is a way to be able to say you're carbon neutral and not have to DO anything and change your lifestyle. You just write a check and you don't feel guilty anymore. You feel like you're saving the planet when you're just giving money to a good cause.

Yes, but there's also an individual's role in the purchase of offsets or "indulgences" that are posed. Gore himself purchased a number of these credits (from his own company, no less) to offset his very "green" thirty-room mansion in Tennesee, all the while decrying the vile greed and consumption of we here in the West. True, companies can buy them -- and they're definitely worth it for PR purposes and to make the mouth-breathing public feel better, but, as documents of any real worth, belong only in the latrine . . .
 
  • #28
It's funny how the existence of Al Gore is somehow an argument. I wish I could say folks were more thoughtful in my country LMAO

Good posts Mokele
 
  • #29
Clint exactly I like hinted in the first post Carbon credits do absolutely flipping nothing to save the environment. All your doing is giving everyone a certain number of credits to produce. When you run out of credits you stop (supposedly) or buy someone else's who is not using them all. Like sharing cell phone minutes on a family plan. If one doesn't use all the min the other can because the min count is set. Use it or loose it. The number of carbon being released stays the same. So how in the world is that helping? Gore makes me sick. His whole existence sickens me and has since the beginning. The man is a fruit loop just like a few people here. Not to name any names.

The thing about peer review is they are called piers for a reason. All you have to do is get your buddy to review the article for you and you get that done a few time and its reviewed. There is clicks and political rigging in the scientific community as well. Just take a look at everyone who was against Hawkins until the man blew the entire scientific community on their butts. Einstein was another that no one agreed with until whatever he did to finally make the rest believers.

So the same will go with this global warming BS. It is a trend, but not one that I think is totally man made. One that I think will reverse itself and we will plummet into a cooling period if not another iceage. May not be in our lifetime, but I think its coming.

No I have no pier reviewed article BS to prove anything. Nor will I go look for any. The whole thing about government funding the GW projects and studies is where its at. If your desperate for someone to fund you and you know you have to eat. Why not research something and give them the reports they want so you can keep getting funding. It is all a political game. Unless your independent and doing it for yourself. You can always be swayed by money. Its human nature.
 
  • #30
It's funny how the existence of Al Gore is somehow an argument. I wish I could say folks were more thoughtful in my country LMAO

Good posts Mokele


The mention of Gore, at least in my case, simply stems from the fact that he and associates stand to make a great deal selling environmental "indulgences" to those unable to balance their own checkbooks, that he wrote at least two books dealing with environmental questions, and that he himself and popularizers have set himself up as an eschatological prophet.

Keep in mind, I initially supported his run for the presidency in 2000 and voted for he and Bubba in 1992. I simply found his interminable Jeremiads sounding hollow from the halls of a thirty room mansion . . .

Ca suffit . . .
 
  • #31
You could say it's helping indirectly by funding research for cleaner fuel, better solar panels/wind mills/etc. More of a long-run kind of deal.


If we could make more efficient solar panels, that would be amazing. No more energy problems, and energy would be free. Right now they really suck and the cost is prohibitive. You eventually save money (and sometimes make a little by supplying excess electricity back to the grid) but the upfront cost is very high. It's really a long-term investment.
 
Back
Top