Quote:
Originally Posted by shesus
On the show, they delved into carbon credits. They compared these to the sin tax before Martin Luther. Background on this: People would sin (everyone does) and go to the church to give money for full forgiveness. The church did this to raise money. Is the government or green programs guilting people over driving SUVs and causing harm to the environment in order to make money?
|
I didn't see the show but that is a terrible comparison. A sin tax is just giving money to the church. Carbon credits are credits for real and quantifiable emissions reductions. They make emissions reduction programs cost effective by getting the public involved.
I work as an environmental consultant and our clients are the landfill industry. The decay of waste results in the production of methane and carbon dioxide. Landfills that exceed certain thresholds are required to install landfill gas collection systems that combust the methane in the landfill gas. Since methane has a much higher global warming potential, converting it to CO2 is a net emissions reduction. Smaller landfills, however, are not required to install collection systems.
Recently my company has become involved with carbon credits through the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The CCX will give you carbon credits that you can sell on the open market. There are a few catches:
1. You can only get credits if you can prove that the reductions are real
2. You cannot get any credits if there is any regulatory rule forcing you to make the emissions reductions.
Meeting these conditions requires confirmation by third parties.
We've completed a few projects and it has been a huge success. The carbon credits paid for all of the costs of designing and building the gas collection system. On top of that, the cities that we did this for made money and we made money as well. It is a win for us, a win for the city, and a win for the environment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
But at the societal level, would a reliance on industries to voluntarily dump less waste and toxins in the air and water have accomplished as much as the environmental laws of the 60s and 70s with their tough and enforceable regulatory standards?
I think not.
|
Big business doesn't spend money unless it is forced to. If nobody is forcing them to spend a million dollars on building a baghouse to control particulate emissions, it won't get built. Even then you might have to fight them to the death for it. Maricopa County spent years in court trying to get a brick manufacturer to install a baghouse. They finally won but it took forever and cost a shitload of money.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm not going to stop travelling any time soon. The planes go to these destinations with our without me. I'd believe the whole owning the carbon footprint a bit more if I was chartering a flight, but I'm not. The transportation infrasctructure moves with or without me.
|
Yes it moves on with or without you but every person on the plane results in increased fuel consumption.
-----Added 25/7/2008 at 12 : 38 : 12-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by shesus
How do you know for certain that your recycling bin isn't being tossed in with the rest of the garbage? How much electricity is it using to recycle? Is it really as environment friendly as it appears?
|
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It all depends on the market conditions at the time. In reality, they plastics industry does a lot more pre-consumer recycling than post-consumer recycling. It is also complicated, only certain types of plastics can be recycled and then they have to sort based on color and other properties.
Plastics are created from petroleum products. The raw materials are brought from wherever the oil is extracted to the plant. Recyclable materials only have to go from the recycling facility to the plant.