 |
|
|
|
 |
trewqy
^5
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: BangCOCK
|
|
|
Meat187,
are u related to blink182?
|
|
Jun-02-2008 17:44
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Arbiter
Naked Power Organ

Registered: May 2002
Location:
|
|
|
Re: What is the point....
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Of having any sort of cap on GHG emissions if you have a carbon credit program that allows you, as a company, to sell your credits to other companies? I am all for implementing caps, but there are far too many companies that have very little emissions, and have excess credits they sell to companies that gobble up credits from a mass of companies. I really see no benefit. Discuss. |
The emissions produced by many companies are higher than they need to be because to reduce them would cost money. If they have to spend money either way, e.g. by purchasing these credits, then in some cases the cost of simply reducing emissions might be lower, in which case it would provide an incentive for them to follow more "environmentally friendly" practices.
Of course, the point of all of this is questionable if you ask me. Even if we reduce the rate of emissions here, it will be more than offset by increased emissions in China and India. There comes a point in time when you have to give up on saving a sinking ship and just try to get as many people to the life raft as you can, and if you ask me we're well past that time with regards to this particular issue...
|
|
Jun-02-2008 18:38
|
|
|
 |
 |
gehzumteufel
In your ass

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: so cal
|
|
|
Re: Re: What is the point....
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I'm guessing it acts as a financial incentive for companies not to pollute -- the ones who don't pollute will in effect be making more money, since they can sell their pollution credits to other companies. And the ultra-polluting companies will lose more money, since their inefficient (polluting) operations will require them by law to buy pollution credits from other companies.
In addition, there's the possibility for public criticism of companies that buy lots of credits / praise for ones who don't have to buy any credits, assuming that the information about who buys or sells credits is publicly available.
That's how I understand this at least, and it doesn't really seem like that terrible of an idea to me. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
The emissions produced by many companies are higher than they need to be because to reduce them would cost money. If they have to spend money either way, e.g. by purchasing these credits, then in some cases the cost of simply reducing emissions might be lower, in which case it would provide an incentive for them to follow more "environmentally friendly" practices.
Of course, the point of all of this is questionable if you ask me. Even if we reduce the rate of emissions here, it will be more than offset by increased emissions in China and India. There comes a point in time when you have to give up on saving a sinking ship and just try to get as many people to the life raft as you can, and if you ask me we're well past that time with regards to this particular issue... |
While you both have mostly sound arguments, it hinges on assuming this program does not exist today. While they are talking about "creating" this carbon credit program in this new bill that CNN and the rest of the news media is talking about, the program already exists. Companies have been buying and selling carbon credits for years. You can find lots of info on it.
Also, just allowing the credits to be purchased, doesn't really effect the bottom line that much. It is just like the fine for using illegal workers. They make more money in a single day off the illegals they employ than the fines cost them in 1 year. In most places anyways. The cost of the carbon credit program, far outweighs the cost of upgrading, as it is cheaper than upgrading or implementing these controls.
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
Dual exhaust tips on dual exhaust = QUAD EXHAUST = 300 gain in horsepower. Duh |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
Undies with a dickhole aren't good for guys. Your balls can get caught in them. That's why I prefer to go over the gate instead of through the fence. |
|
|
Jun-02-2008 19:01
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:06.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|