Lies,Damn Lies and Carbon Credits

[nosmokes]

It's a greenhouse gas double play!I was under the impression carbon credits had to be certed by one of like 4 or 5 organizations like greenpeace or WWF to have any validity.Is that not the case?If it is,WTF are these guys doing selling carbon credits, If that isn't case, then are carbon credits arejust another feel -good rip off?
--###--

original-guardian


Biotech firm plans to fund GM rice crops with carbon credits

David Adam


o Tuesday January 8 2008

Money paid by green consumers to offset their flights and by companies that go carbon-neutral will be used to fund the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops under plans drawn up by a US biotechnology company.

Arcadia Biosciences is working with the Chinese government to reward farmers in China that grow the firm's genetically modified (GM) rice, with carbon credits that they can sell for cash.

The credits would be sold on the global carbon trading market set up under the Kyoto protocol, the international agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which is used by governments, companies and individuals to offset their pollution. Arcadia plans to expand the Chinese scheme to more crops in other countries, including Britain.

Arcadia says its GM rice requires less nitrogen fertiliser, and so farmers that grow it will lower their emissions of nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas some 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Swapping global rice supply to the GM version, the company says, would save the equivalent of 50m tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, and generate £750m in carbon credits for farmers.























complete article here

[Deja Q]

1. .

:popcorn:

[Xithras]

2. Certification? LOL! Carbon credits are capitalisms answer to global warming.

Generally speaking, Kyoto imposes carbon limits on NATIONS, not people. The nations are then free to come up with whatever scheme's they want to distribute those credits. Still generally speaking, poorer countries simply intend to swap their unused credits for cash. In China's case, they apparently intend to use them to improve Arcadia's stock price.

This is why some of us have railed against Kyoto from the get-go, and it's the reason why Bill Clinton refused to sign the treaty. Kyoto is a feel good program that makes us feel like we're "doing something". It is NOT capable of actually reducing emissions (it might reduce emissions GROWTH slightly, but even that effect will be minor...we're talking a reduction in global emissions GROWTH on a scale of maybe 5%. In the meantime, traders will be making billions. It's the stock market of the future.

Most of the people who support it do so because they claim it's better than nothing. I think it's WORSE than nothing. Not only will it fail to have any real impact on global climate change, but it will deflate some of the momentum behind the movement to fix the issue. Many people will stop being active and say, "But we DID do something about it...we signed Kyoto! That's supposed to fix it!" The problem, at this point, is that Kyoto has been so oversold to the population that it may take a decade or more to get any ADDITIONAL legislation pushed through if Kyoto is adopted.

Of course, I also have an issue with the fact that China has no actual limits on their output. Even though they're the largest CO2 emitter on the planet, they're still flagged as a "developing" nation and have an unlimited pool of credits to trade. Since they're "developing", they get to pollute as much as they want. The problem is that the PLANET doesn't care where the pollution comes from, or how nice the homes of its generators are. The PLANET needs human CO2 output to be reduced, and you can't do that when the largest emitter on the planet is putting up dozens of new coal fired power plants each year.