Climate change stupidity.

[classical_hero]

Incentive to slow Climate Change drives output of harmful gases

The basic premise of carbon credits is to reward those who going green, but instead it has allowed those who want to to increase production of a very dangerous gas that destroys the ozone layer.

Greenhouse gases were rated based on their power to warm the atmosphere. The more dangerous the gas, the more that manufacturers in developing nations would be compensated as they reduced their emissions.

But where the United Nations envisioned environmental reform, some manufacturers of gases used in air-conditioning and refrigeration saw a lucrative business opportunity.

They quickly figured out that they could earn one carbon credit by eliminating one ton of carbon dioxide, but could earn more than 11,000 credits by simply destroying a ton of an obscure waste gas normally released in the manufacturing of a widely used coolant gas. That is because that byproduct has a huge global warming effect. The credits could be sold on international markets, earning tens of millions of dollars a year.

That incentive has driven plants in the developing world not only to increase production of the coolant gas but also to keep it high — a huge problem because the coolant itself contributes to global warming and depletes the ozone layer. That coolant gas is being phased out under a global treaty, but the effort has been a struggle.

So since 2005 the 19 plants receiving the waste gas payments have profited handsomely from an unlikely business: churning out more harmful coolant gas so they can be paid to destroy its waste byproduct. The high output keeps the prices of the coolant gas irresistibly low, discouraging air-conditioning companies from switching to less-damaging alternative gases. That means, critics say, that United Nations subsidies intended to improve the environment are instead creating their own damage.
...

As the United Nations became involved in efforts to curb climate change in the last 20 years, it relied on a scientific formula: Carbon dioxide, the most prevalent warming gas, released by smokestacks and vehicles, is given a value of 1. Other industrial gases are assigned values relative to that, based on their warming effect and how long they linger. Methane is valued at 21, nitrous oxide at 310. HFC-23, the waste gas produced making the world’s most common coolant — which is known as HCFC-22 — is near the top of the list, at 11,700.
...

Since the United Nations program began, 46 percent of all credits have been awarded to the 19 coolant factories, in Argentina, China, India, Mexico and South Korea. Two Russian plants receive carbon credits for destroying HFC-23 under a related United Nations program.
...

And even as the economics shift, one big environmental question remains: Without some form of inducement, will companies like Gujarat Fluorochemicals continue to destroy the waste gas HFC-23? Already, a small number of coolant factories in China that did not qualify for the United Nations carbon credits freely vent this dangerous chemical. And atmospheric levels are rapidly rising.

So as you can see a problem was created when there was none beforehand.

 

[Arwon]

What do you mean by "a problem was created where there was none beforehand"? I thought you didn't believe climate change was real, and that the world was only like 10 000 years old anyway, so why would the release of greenhouse gases be a problem?

Plus, you know, if you read the article, plenty of people are aware of it and have campaigned against it and the problem is about to be eliminated.

 

[Old Hippy]

So some business men found a loop hole in the system...

from the very same sorce you linked

In addition to these specific concerns, the EU wants to see the CDM progressively phased out for the advanced developing countries. It should be replaced by new mechanisms that would cover whole sectors and thus tap much greater potential for emission reductions than the project-based CDM. Unlike the CDM, these sectoral mechanisms would generate international credits only if the sector achieved a pre-determined emissions performance threshold. The existing EU legislation already provides that credits from new projects registered after 2012 can only be used in the EU ETS if the projects are located in Least Developed Countries (except where otherwise agreed through future international or bilateral climate agreements).

Next steps

The European Parliament now has three months to comment on the proposal, after which the Commission will formally adopt it. The restrictions will apply from 1st May 2013, giving market participants sufficient time to adapt.

so you fix it...

 

[El_Machinae]

The intent is correct, even the best efforts are currently not enough. This is true, even with a large group of people who're acting against the efforts.

We honestly need more help. At this stage, the help is just to slow the damage.

 

[LucyDuke]

I thought you didn't believe climate change was real, and that the world was only like 10 000 years old anyway, so why would the release of greenhouse gases be a problem?

It's 6000 years. 'Cause of all the guys that lived for hundreds of years. Not thousands. Greenhouses gases are a problem for LOL.

 

[Lord Gay]

Not thousands.

Are there elves in the Bible? Because they can live for thousands of years. I know there are giants and unicorns, but don't know about elves.

 

[Truronian]

Are there elves in the Bible? Because they can live for thousands of years. I know there are giants and unicorns, but don't know about elves.

As can trees.

 

[Core Imposter]

The elves went over the sea a long time ago.

 

[Leoreth]

The elves went over the sea a long time ago.

By sailing the "straight path" no less. Tolkien was really a homophobe.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Even if the particular problem is being fixed, it points to a flaw in the treaty design. Nations should be allotted amounts of CO2-equivalent emissions based primarily on their land + territorial waters area, with some adjustment for past emissions history. Those who go over their limit should pay a tax to those who go under (or if, say, all go over their limits, those who go way over should pay those who go barely over). Then leave it up to each nation to reward or penalize firms and individuals so as to get results.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not as stupid as hacking God off enough to stick us with global flooding.

 

[El_Machinae]

Even if the particular problem is being fixed, it points to a flaw in the treaty design. Nations should be allotted amounts of CO2-equivalent emissions based primarily on their land + territorial waters area, with some adjustment for past emissions history.

+1

 

[GhostWriter16]

It's 6000 years. 'Cause of all the guys that lived for hundreds of years. Not thousands. Greenhouses gases are a problem for LOL.

This depends on a number of things, and I'm not sure where classical_hero stands on them. First of all, whether you believe the original Hebrew text of the OT is authoritative or the Greek translation (I see no reason to believe the latter but practically all the patristic fathers of the Church did) since the numbers are different, and second, whether or not you believe there can be gaps in the generations (In other words, do you think "Seth begat such and such" HAS to mean that it was his son, or could it be a later descendent, as Jewish geneaologies commonly did back then.)

Personally, science isn't my subject, so I don't really get into the Evolution debate, but History IS my subject and a history of humanity that is only 6,000 years long is hard to fit with what historians think about even human societies. If you throw the Flood in there, Egypt can't be more than 4,000 years old, where its supposed to be something like 5,000. Plus, Egypt was obviously somewhat developed, with a Pharoah and all, when Abraham went there in about 2,000 BC. That's tough to fit with a flood that allegedly happened around 2,400 BC. I'm open to the idea that there could have been gaps in the generations.

As for how long the ante-diluvian people lived, Methusalah lived to be 969 and, if I recall correctly, assuming no gaps in the geneaologies would place his death on the year of the worldwide flood. That's the oldest guy listed. However, practically everyone on the list "Had other sons and daughters" and they obviously aren't all listed. IIRC Jewish tradition says Adam had over 30 kids. That one of them, or one of the many, many kids that would come from nine generations (Again, assuming no gaps) of people living hundreds of years, could have hit 1,000 is not impossible, in spite of him not being mentioned. The Bible doesn't really say Methusalah was the oldest, in spite of many people calling him "The oldest man ever."

 

[JollyRoger]

A student of history that wants to dabble with when human life started should have an understanding of science.

 

[GhostWriter16]

A student of history that wants to dabble with when human life started should have an understanding of science.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that A: The scientists are correctly interpreting the evidence (Which other YECs can argue better than I can) or B: I can't think thateven if they do interpret it correctly, its still wrong.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I can't think thateven if they do interpret it correctly, its still wrong.

How's this work?

Oh, and good to see you again GW after your hiatus.

 

[GhostWriter16]

How's this work?

Oh, and good to see you again GW after your hiatus.

You're right about that at first glance. What I meant was, even if its perfectly logical to believe in Evolution based on the evidence, it could still be the incorrect conclusion, at least theoretically speaking.

It was more a disinterest in the topic than anything though. I have several theological reasons for rejecting evolution, that would actually make it harder for me to accept theistic evolution than YEC (There are a few fine-print Biblical reasons but the main one is that I don't think God would allow death in the world before sin caused it) but for some, that isn't as big a deal as the alleged scientific evidence.

There are all sorts of people who put a lot of work into discrediting that evidence. I'm not really knowledgable enough, but mere ignorance isn't going to change my mind.

 

[peter grimes]

Personally, science isn't my subject, so I don't really get into the Evolution debate, but History IS my subject and a history of humanity that is only 6,000 years long is hard to fit with what historians think about even human societies.

Good to see you again!

Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, my point:
You do, of course, realize that historians use 'science', right? So if you're going to accept the conclusions of history (an amalgam of many different specialized sciences), the other areas of science are also validated. It's not like one field exists in complete isolation from others.

I don't want to go off into the evolution weeds, but it's this same sort of inter-relatedness and cross validation that you accept for history that ALSO shows that deep-time evolution through natural selection explains life on earth, including humans.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Good to see you again!

Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, my point:
You do, of course, realize that historians use 'science', right? So if you're going to accept the conclusions of history (an amalgam of many different specialized sciences), the other areas of science are also validated. It's not like one field exists in complete isolation from others.

I don't want to go off into the evolution weeds, but it's this same sort of inter-relatedness and cross validation that you accept for history that ALSO shows that deep-time evolution through natural selection explains life on earth, including humans.

I'm aware of this, at least generally speaking, but I'm not particularly knowledgable about it. I know a lot of history, at least for someone with my level of education (12th grade high school student) and the subject interests me a lot. Science interests me a lot less, and even though I do get that they are related, its not something I'm particularly knowledgable about.

Here's the thing with me and evolution, if it were absolutely proven and I could understand the evidence that proved it, I wouldn't reject it, and rejecting it would not shake my faith in God.

However, since it is not absolutely proven (Even if there is proof that Evolution is true, there's always a possibility for error) I choose to trust God and his word over the ideas of man.

Oh, and if Evolution were absolutely proven, between 10 and 45 percent of Americans wouldn't be YECs. They'd still exist, sure, but they wouldn't be such a potent minority. Has anyone actually heard, let alone considered, teaching a flat earth in schools? (Oh, and the Bible doesn't teach a flat earth either, notably.)

 

[LucyDuke]

This depends on a number of things, and I'm not sure where classical_hero stands on them. First of all, whether you believe the original Hebrew text of the OT is authoritative or the Greek translation (I see no reason to believe the latter but practically all the patristic fathers of the Church did) since the numbers are different, and second, whether or not you believe there can be gaps in the generations (In other words, do you think "Seth begat such and such" HAS to mean that it was his son, or could it be a later descendent, as Jewish geneaologies commonly did back then.)

Personally, science isn't my subject, so I don't really get into the Evolution debate, but History IS my subject and a history of humanity that is only 6,000 years long is hard to fit with what historians think about even human societies. If you throw the Flood in there, Egypt can't be more than 4,000 years old, where its supposed to be something like 5,000. Plus, Egypt was obviously somewhat developed, with a Pharoah and all, when Abraham went there in about 2,000 BC. That's tough to fit with a flood that allegedly happened around 2,400 BC. I'm open to the idea that there could have been gaps in the generations.

As for how long the ante-diluvian people lived, Methusalah lived to be 969 and, if I recall correctly, assuming no gaps in the geneaologies would place his death on the year of the worldwide flood. That's the oldest guy listed. However, practically everyone on the list "Had other sons and daughters" and they obviously aren't all listed. IIRC Jewish tradition says Adam had over 30 kids. That one of them, or one of the many, many kids that would come from nine generations (Again, assuming no gaps) of people living hundreds of years, could have hit 1,000 is not impossible, in spite of him not being mentioned. The Bible doesn't really say Methusalah was the oldest, in spite of many people calling him "The oldest man ever."

I'm not sure what your post is for, but here's what CH said he thinks.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5293579&postcount=30&highlight=6000+years

Here's the thing with me and evolution, if it were absolutely proven and I could understand the evidence that proved it, I wouldn't reject it, and rejecting it would not shake my faith in God.

However, since it is not absolutely proven (Even if there is proof that Evolution is true, there's always a possibility for error) I choose to trust God and his word over the ideas of man.

Oh, and if Evolution were absolutely proven, between 10 and 45 percent of Americans wouldn't be YECs. They'd still exist, sure, but they wouldn't be such a potent minority. Has anyone actually heard, let alone considered, teaching a flat earth in schools? (Oh, and the Bible doesn't teach a flat earth either, notably.)

It has been proven, by all the evidence that anyone has ever found. People that don't believe it are just (in many cases willfully) ignorant. Is that what this thread is going to be about now? The nonscience that discredits the OP's wannalulz?