20 Comments Posted

  1. Alistar,

    While I agree with your sentiments that carbon trading has potential for good, its ability to fullfill its potential is in doubt.

    On one hand we have private enterprise traders (Al Gore and his cronies) and on the other we have the UN trying to become a “world government” by default and in charge of all regulatory carbon trading function tranactions PLUS distributor of funding.

    So is the UN the johhny come lately in trying to corner the carbon trading market from the capitalist?

    And wont that be an unholy conflict?

    It is interesting that very little debate is going on about the end game measurment of successful climate control and the removal for carbon trading once the world has no carbon emmisions.

    How will the carbon trading industry be dismantled?

    Will the UN give up its socialist powerbase?

    So many questions but all we hear about is the bickering about if the leaked emails show conspiracy or not, and are the pacific islands under treat from rising sea levels or from over population and a falling fresh water table.

    From a strategic point of view Copenhagen is a complete waste of time, nothing will be decided and no firm action will result.

    Which is rather sad as so much potential good is possible but carbon trading is not one of the good (due to corruption, politicalization, etc.) options available.

    It is a scam that wont change carbon emmisions, ease poverty, nor set 6 billion people onto a better pathway to the future.

    It is nothing more than a powerplay between capitalism and UN socialists.

    Neither are REALLY interested in bettering human kind, just the play for power.

    Curse on both their houses.

  2. Gerrit :
    Carbon trading, in itself, doesn’t save the planet. What it does is create a virtuous market mechanism. The thing that has the potential to save the planet is the creation of the carbon credits. The trading finances the projects that reduce greenhouse gases. Forestry projects, capture of methane, many others.

    As for corruption. I will not presume to defend all UN programs as a whole. However, the record of the UN Climate program is good. It is under heavy scrutiny by a lot of economic actors, which probably explains why it is clean (and will remain so), whereas the pure handout programs are inherently much more open to abuse.

    Doing anything serious about the climate necessarily means giving
    the poorer nations a path to development that is not carbon-intensive. That means, for example, electrification so that people can cook their meals without cutting down trees; and renewable electricity rather than fossil fuels. That will require funding.

    I agree that, whatever world leaders agree to in Copenhagen, it’ll be a hard sell back home to raise the money. All over the world.

  3. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210162222.htm

    Bacteria Engineered to Turn Carbon Dioxide Into Liquid Fuel

    ” Global climate change has prompted efforts to drastically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels. In a new approach, researchers from the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science have genetically modified a cyanobacterium to consume carbon dioxide and produce the liquid fuel isobutanol, which holds great potential as a gasoline alternative. The reaction is powered directly by energy from sunlight, through photosynthesis.”

  4. funniest Peter Dunne ever from Danyl last year:

    “United Future leader Peter Dunne proposed suspending GST charges on krill, sea urchins, molluscs and crustaceans. With over 150 thousand strands of hair per square centimeter Dunne’s fur is the most dense of any major party political leader; the fur consists of long waterproof guard hairs and short underfur. The guardhairs keep the underfur dry.”

  5. National are right wing, behaving like left wingers to cement their place.
    Any party that employs Don Brash, Christine Rankin or any similar rabid ideologue or willingly works alongside of nutty Rodney Hide and his dodgy Overlord Roger Douglas, is right wing.

  6. For the record, I’m not Peter Dunne, nor to the best of my knowledge, have I ever been Peter Dunne.

    PS: National are left wing.

  7. You’d think, wat, you’d think. However, much of their behaviour screams otherwise. What you’d like to see is a real right wing party take the controls and really make this country fly, right?

  8. What our right wing National/Act/Maori Government has committed the taxpayers of New Zealand to, is a disgrace! I’m not at all surprised that Wat and BluePeter are disgusted with them (though if BP truly is Peter Dunne, it’s a bit hypocritical of him to dump on his own team).

  9. – “Green Party MPs Dr Kennedy Graham and Jeanette Fitzsimons talk about what attending the Copenhagen conference means to them personally.”

    Well, a free trip to Copenhagen for one.

    International air travel for me, but not for thee.

    Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges:
    ‘…the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.” And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five.”
    …According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants’ travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of “carbon dioxide equivalent”, equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough. ‘

    I wonder if the term ‘circle jerk’ will make it through the filters?

  10. Waste of time going as carbon credit trading has nothing to do with saving the planet. It has everything to do with wealth distribution.

    Led by a former NZL prime minister the UN wants at least $100 Billion for distribution to poorer countries.

    Not to save the planet but viewed entirely from the perspective that

    that climate change effects cannot be dealt with in a separate silo from poverty reduction and the Millennium Development goals, “because if you don’t get the sustainable development side right, you’ll never sustainably reduce hunger or achieve any development goals”.

    hat tip – Fran O’Sullivan http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10614943

    Problem to be faced is one where the climate is “under” control but the wealth distribution is incomplete.

    Where to then?

    What will they “tax” next?

    And the major problem of who controls the money and who “clips the ticket”.

    First, the UN’s own record on administering development funds has not always been snow-white.

    Second, accountability is lacking in many poor countries.

    Frankly, donor nations, like New Zealand, should put the acid on Clark to ensure any “climate finance” they stump up is project-related.

    The fact is the “big C” that has really stymied development in many poorer countries is not “climate change” but “corruption”.

    As Clark’s boss Ban Ki-moon said this week, corruption kills development and has been one of the biggest obstacles to achieving the Millennium Development goals to lift people out of poverty by 2015. “When public money is stolen for private gain, it means fewer resources to build schools, hospitals, roads and water treatment facilities. When foreign aid is diverted into private bank accounts, major infrastructure projects come to a halt.”

    And will we see the development of the carbondollar when we see terms like this

    But the notion of “eco debt” has crept its way onto the official UN agenda. Terms like “emissions debt”, “equitable burden sharing”, “historical climate debt” and “a more equitable utilisation of the global atmospheric resources” pepper the official text of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Will countries go into carbon debt to survive and how will this affect the climate?

    Especially when

    Problem is how many western Governments are going to step up to the plate and fund Clark’s US$100 billion of annual climate penance, when their own countrymen are feeling the pinch and the political leaders worry they will face voter wrath if they can’t sell the rationale for reducing domestic greenhouse emissions?

    Just a big money go round that will achieve diddly squat in terms of climate change. Good to see capitalism is alive and well.

Comments are closed.